gossip which they then put between two hardcovers, and all of a sudden because they put it between two hardcovers it becomes authoritative. the authoritative source for my betting is the guy who did it, mitt romney. he said there was nothing in the vetting that gave him any pause at all, nothing that had not been in the public realm, and it was not the reason he did not ask me to be vice president. as far as scrutiny goes, i am not worried about scrutiny. some will be fair, some will be unfair. if you are worried about that in this business, you don't belong in this business. >> the press, they like your directness. >> you have to ask them. if they ask good questions, i give good answers, and it usually makes good copy for them.

if they ask stupid questions, i tell them they are stupid. that is the relationship every candidate should try to have with the media. >> over there, please? >> i think what we all want to know, what does it take for a republican candidate to beat hillary, and can you do that? >> i have no idea if i can do it, but listen -- i think the question should be broader. what does it take for a republican candidate to win? we have to do better than over the last two cycles. we have to reach out to other constituencies that have not voted for us in the past, and we better be doing it now. the fact is, our country is changing, like it always does. as a country changes demographically and economically, people who want to lead first have to understand who they are asking to lead. they need to listen to those

people. i think leadership is just as much about listening as it is about talking. for republicans, we can't give the percentage of the hispanic vote and african-american vote that we have nationally and think we can be a successful national party. we have to be better. it is not just about policy. auntie of my policies are pursued in new jersey, folks in those communities disagreed with. yet they voted for me anyway. triple the number of african- american voters we got in 2000 nine. a majority, 51%, of hispanic voters. i think it is because they felt like they were included, that

their opinions mattered. when i made decisions, they didn't need to hear about it some place else. they heard about it for me. good news or bad news, they heard it from me. we had to stop, as a party, going back to the old tried and true ways of running these campaigns. they are not working. we need someone who is going to be clear, direct, authentic, and say what they think. if that is good enough, it is good enough. if it's not, it's not. changing things around, changing positions, trying to look at something -- what does he want to hear? trying to figure it out, then say it, and pray to god he never remembers that you actually promised to do that because you have no intention of doing it, that is not the way to win. in the long-term. >> one more question? >> when you were talking about the affordable health care act, you mentioned we had a government that had people who do not know how to do things. have you given thought to, as president -- i know it is premature -- but how would you put together a federal government of people who know how to do things? >> i don't know. it is i am not president. but i would tell you, as

governor, i have people in my cabinet of both parties. i have people in my cabinet who i took out of private-sector business and lured to come out. my commissioner of transportation rent private business. he runs the transportation department like a business. i have folks who have experienced, who are not business people but have been career social workers. they understand things a lot better than i do. my general rule is i want most people in the room with me to be smarter than me. legitimately smarter than me. that is not my job, to be the smartest guy in the room. my job is to make decisions. the way i make decisions, the way i trust many of you do, you listen to the folks around you, the cabinet you build.

whether you are running a corporation or a government. you listen to those people and you reach out, then you think about it, and you are the one in the room with the will to

decide. that is the hardest thing to find, in my experience. it is harder to find that than to find a whole bunch of people who know a lot more than me, are a lot more than me. that is not what i am hired for. the way you put together a group, you say, i want people who are experts in areas, who have practical experience. he goes were honest, who speak

truth to power. he told who are willing to quit because they don't need this job. it is not their whole life. you put that group of people together, you will have a lot of heartburn over time, but you will also, i think, have the best chance to have the kind of information you need to make really good decisions. you have to be unafraid to decide. i think that is the format for any successful enterprise. we intended to change the way things worked. we did. because of those people. their loyalty, their intellect, and their willingness to stand with me to get the mission completed. no matter what enterprise you are running, a fortune 500 company, the state government, the federal government, those

are the elements to put together a successful operation. if you can hit those elements, you have a much better chance of being successful. if you can't, i believe you are doomed to failure. another thing that sounds relatively simple, because it is. it is relatively simple. when we try to aggrandize ourselves we make it more, located. >> ladies and gentlemen, you have heard some characteristically direct talk from governor christie tonight. please join me in thanking him very much for dipping of his time. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] later on will have an encore presentation with q&a with robin nagle. she discussed her experience working as a sanitation worker to being hired a hearing of the duties are working on a garbage truck.

you can see this is at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. the threat of lone wolves. a consultant to says the u.s. can withstand terrorist attacks. >> what if that were happening here? the united states is arguably the most resilient society in the world. we're probably one of the societies that this least willing to confront the issues and actions like this. 9/11 did not destroy the united states.

it was a horrific events. the economic consequences public that magnified because of the reactions. i say this with all due respect. 9/11 itself was a very small americaserms of the ability to do the things that america needs to do. every ability. don's wife is british. survived the blitz in two world wars. it survived the irish. let's not forget that.

at the end of the day, we need prepared to understand that going forward, identifying the telltale signs of a proto- medicalization, whether it is being able to successfully dip oro every internet search look for the ultimate filter or filters. they have defined our actions for terrorism as being in pursuit of a risk-free society. we set yourself up to fail.

i would argue we have done as a service to the population. freeill have this risk- future. i have no respect for richard snowden. it got me conversation. >> to all of that event and a time at c-span.org. historic trip to china, they noticed how mrs. nixon was looking at this. she was admiring that. they will make sure they have

deep interest to go home with. just her being there would bring so much goodwill. they would follow this at the end of the week. >> 10 i live at 9:00 eastern on and c-spanc-span3 radio and c-span.org. statement to the british house of commons today, william hague outlined the iranian nuclear agreement. he described it as taking measures. this is one hour and 15 minutes. secretary william hague. >> i would make a statement on our negotiations with iran.

i explained then that iran was to produce a first step agreement. we could create the confidence for a comprehensive settlement, addressing all concerns about the nuclear program. we have always been clear that because iran's program is so extensive and crucial aspects have been concealed in the past, any agreement would have to be detailed and give assurance to the whole world that the price would be properly addressed.

we believe that such a deal was on the table. we would do our utmost to bridge the narrow gap between the party and conclude a strong agreement. on wednesday last week, the iranian negotiations resumed their work in geneva. on saturday morning, i joined the talks. at 4:00 yesterday, we concluded the negotiations successfully.

we agreed on a first stage agreement, which is a significant step toward enhancing the security of the middle east and preventing nuclear proliferation worldwide. in this statement, i will cover the extensive commitments that iran has made and the sanction it will only replace existing ones with in the same only produces to replace damaged machines on a like for like basis. on a like-for-like basis. in other words, iran will not install or bring into operation advanced centrifuges that could enable it to produce a dangerous level of enriched uranium more quickly. iran will cap its stockpile of up to 5% enriched uranium in the

highest-risk uf6 form by converting any newly enriched uranium into oxide, and it will not set up any new locations for enrichment or establish a reprocessing or reconversion facility. iran has agreed to enhanced monitoring of its nuclear program, going beyond existing international atomic energy agency inspections in iran, including access to centrifuge assembly workshops and to uranium mines and mills. iran will also provide the iaea with additional information, including about its plans for nuclear facilities. at the heavy water research reactor at arak, which offers iran a potential route to a nuclear weapon through the production of plutonium rather than uranium, iran will not commission the reactor, transfer fuel or heavy water to the

reactor site, test additional fuel, produce more fuel for the reactor, or install any remaining components. this agreement means that the elements of iran's nuclear program that are thought to present the greatest risk cannot make progress during the period of the interim agreement. in other words, if iran implements the deal in good faith, as it has undertaken to do, it cannot use those routes to move closer towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability. moreover, some of the most dangerous elements of iran's program are not only frozen, but actually rolled back. for instance, the agreement involves the eradication of around 200 kg of 20% enriched uranium that iran has been stockpiling for several years. secondly, in return for those commitments iran will receive proportionate and limited sanctions relief from the united states and the european union. for its part, the us will pause efforts to reduce crude oil sales to iran's oil customers, repatriate to iran some of its oil revenue held abroad, suspend sanctions on the iranian auto industry, allow licensing of safety-related repairs and inspections for certain iranian

airlines and establish a financial channel to facilitate humanitarian and legitimate trade, including for payments to international organisations and iranians studying abroad. it is proposed that the eu and the us together will suspend sanctions on oil-related insurance and transport costs, which will allow the provision of such services to third states for the import of iranian oil. we will also suspend the prohibition on the import, purchase or transport of iranian petrochemical products and suspend sanctions on iranian imports of gold and precious metals. but core sanctions on iranian oil and gas will remain in place. it is intended that the eu will also increase by an agreed amount the authorisation thresholds for financial transactions for humanitarian and non-sanctioned trade with iran. the eu's council of ministers will be asked to adopt legislation necessary to amend those sanctions and the new provisions would then apply to

all eu member states. the total value of the sanctions relief is estimated at $7 billion over the six-month period. there will be no new nuclear- related sanctions adopted by the un, eu and us during that period. however, the bulk of international sanctions on iran will remain in place. that includes the eu and us oil embargo, which restricts oil purchases from iran globally, and sanctions on nuclear, military-related or ballistic missile-related goods and technology. it includes all frozen revenue and foreign exchange reserves held in accounts outside iran and sanctions on many iranian banks, including the central bank of iran, which means all

iranian assets in the us and eu remain frozen, apart from the limited repatriation of revenue agreed under this agreement. iranian leaders and key individuals and entities will still have their assets in the eu and us frozen and be banned from travelling to the eu and us, and tough financial measures, including a ban on using financial messaging services and transactions with european and us banks, also remain in place. those sanctions will not be lifted until a comprehensive settlement is reached, and we will enforce them robustly. that ensures that iran still has a powerful incentive to reach a comprehensive solution, which is the third aspect of the agreement on which i wish to update the house today. the agreement sets out the elements of a comprehensive solution, which we would aim to conclude within one year. these elements include iran's rights and obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and iaea safeguards; the full resolution of concerns related to the heavy water research reactor at arak; agreed transparency and monitoring, including the additional

protocol; and co-operation on iran's civilian nuclear program. in return for the international community's full confidence that iran's program is solely peaceful, the plan of action envisages a mutually defined enrichment program with agreed parameters and limits, but only as part of a comprehensive agreement where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. this comprehensive solution, if and when agreed, would lead to the lifting of all un security council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to iran's nuclear program. reaching this interim agreement was a difficult and painstaking process, and there is a huge amount of work to be done to implement it. implementation will begin following technical discussions with iran and the iaea, and eu preparations to suspend the relevant sanctions, which we hope will all be concluded by the end of january. a joint commission of the e3 plus 3 and iran will be established to monitor the implementation of these first- step measures, and it will work with the iaea to resolve outstanding issues. the fact that we have achieved, for the first time in nearly a decade, an agreement that halts and rolls back iran's nuclear program should give us heart that this work can be done and that a comprehensive agreement can be attained.

on an issue of such complexity, and given the fact that to make any diplomatic agreement worthwhile to both sides it has to involve compromises, such an agreement is bound to have its critics and opponents. however, we are right to test to the full iran's readiness to act in good faith, to work with the rest of the international community, and to enter into international agreements. if the iranians do not abide by their commitments, they will bear a heavy responsibility, but if we did not take the opportunity to attempt such an agreement, then we ourselves would have been guilty of a grave error. it is true that if we did not have this agreement the pressure of sanctions on iran would not be alleviated at all, but it is also true that there would be no restraint on advances to their program -- no check on their enrichment activity and stockpiles, no block on their addition of centrifuges, no

barrier to prevent their bringing into operation their heavy water reactor at arak, and no limitation on the many actions that could take them closer to a nuclear weapons capability. the bringing together of this agreement with all five permanent members of the united nations security council united behind it sends a powerful signal in itself. while it is only a beginning, there is no doubt that this is an important, necessary and completely justified step, which through its restrictions on iran's nuclear program gives us the time to negotiate a comprehensive settlement. i pay tribute to baroness ashton, to my foreign minister colleagues and to our foreign office staff who played an indispensable role.

we will apply the same rigour and determination we have shown in these negotiations to the implementation of the agreement and to the search for a comprehensive settlement. at the same time, we will continue to be open to improvements in our bilateral relationship on a step-by-step and reciprocal basis, and our new charg? d'affaires will visit iran shortly. this agreement has shown that the combination of pressure expressed through sanctions coupled with a readiness to negotiate is the right policy. for a long time, that has been the united approach of this country, from the efforts of the right honorable member for blackburn (mr straw) to pursue negotiations a decade ago to the cross-party support in this house for the wide-ranging sanctions that we have adopted in recent years. we have been steadfast in pursuing that twin-track policy and seeking a peaceful solution. this agreement is true to that approach and to that sheer persistence in britain and among our allies. this will remain our policy over the coming months as we build on and implement this first step on the long journey to making the middle east -- and the whole world -- safer from nuclear proliferation. >> may i thank the foreign secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it? he was generous to end his remarks by recognising the reality of the bipartisan approach that has been characteristic of this house and, indeed, this country to these issues over recent years, including the approach of my right honorable friend the

member for blackburn (mr straw) when he was foreign secretary. let me echo that and add that all those involved in the geneva negotiations, including the foreign secretary and foreign office officials, deserve real credit for their role in helping secure this deal. in particular, the work of the european union high representative baroness cathy ashton has been fundamental. indeed, as the foreign secretary acknowledged in his statement -- a little late, i would argue -- she was "indispensable" to ensuring that agreement was finally reached.

we on this side of the house feel a particular pride in the role that baroness ashton has played and the determination, skill and diplomatic perseverance she has shown, and we offer her our sincere congratulations. the international community stands united in believing that if iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, that would make the world less safe, so the deal agreed in geneva was a necessary and important first step. iran has, of course, over recent years proceeded at pace with its enrichment program despite repeated calls by the international community for it to stop. this is not a perfect deal, nor is it guaranteed to lead to a comprehensive resolution, but, based on the foreign secretary's statement, it appears to address a number of central concerns. first, it caps every aspect of iran's nuclear program. secondly, it includes strong verification mechanisms and measures. thirdly, its text does not concede that iran has an inalienable right to enrich. i would like to ask the foreign secretary about each of those three points. the foreign secretary will be aware that the agreement does not call for the dismantlement of the fordow plant, so will he set out what steps are envisaged to help ensure that that deeply

buried facility will ultimately be decommissioned? the foreign secretary referred to the heavy water research reactor at arak. although the deal specifies daily access for the international atomic energy agency inspectors to natanz and fordow, it does not set out the frequency with which inspectors will have access to arak, so will the foreign secretary give us further details of how they will gain access? the foreign secretary did not mention parchin in his statement, and neither did the final text of the agreement agreed yesterday, so will he now clarify whether the deal requires iran to grant iaea inspectors access to the parchin military base, where iran is suspected of carrying out tests related to the detonating of a nuclear weapon? there has been much speculation over the past 24 hours about the absence from the final agreement of the phrase, "right to enrich." will the foreign secretary set out the british government's understanding of whether that absence reflects a continuing point of difference between the

p5 plus 1 and iran, or whether the omission reflects a shared understanding on the issue? although an interim deal seeks to prevent iran from developing its enrichment program while talks are ongoing, it could also ease the pressure on iran and, in fact, undermine the urgency with which a comprehensive resolution may be sought. given that risk, will the foreign secretary set out how he intends to prevent that outcome and what steps he will take with others to continue negotiations on a comprehensive deal within the time frame that has been set out? the announcement of $7 billion of sanctions relief, effective immediately, will be seen as a necessary step to secure the concessions agreed by iran as part of the interim deal, but pressure must still be maintained. will the foreign secretary offer the house assurances that the net effect of that sanctions relief will not exceed the projected amount?

as of yesterday, iran's so- called critical capability will be extended. that, of course, is welcomed by everyone in this house, but while the interim agreement sets iran back, it does not prevent future progress. it would, of course, be far better to secure the end of all enrichment and to see the dismantling of all relevant facilities. one key test of the interim agreement will be whether what has now been agreed in principle can be implemented in practice. that means keeping sanctions tight, verification intrusive and all options on the table. a second key test will be whether the interim agreement can, in the months ahead, be translated into a comprehensive agreement. that means building on this weekend's agreement through urgent and sustained negotiations on a final resolution. the interim agreement reached over the weekend will give us the time and flexibility to negotiate the much more difficult and complex final agreement to dismantle much of iran's nuclear program.

the government can be assured that they will have our support in pursuit of that objective in the weeks and months ahead. >> i am grateful to the right honorable gentleman the shadow foreign secretary for his clear support. there has, indeed, been a bipartisan approach for a long time, and it is clearly continuing in relation to this agreement. the right honorable gentleman is quite right to say, as he did at the end of his remarks, that it is very important to keep sanctions tight and verification intrusive to maintain the confidence and the pressure needed to reach a comprehensive agreement. he is also right that no such agreement can be perfect -- it is the product of negotiations and compromise -- or guaranteed to lead to a comprehensive agreement, but in my judgment it is the only route to a comprehensive agreement. some have made the criticism that we should have concentrated

on moving straight to a final and comprehensive agreement, but from everything that i have seen, i know that that would not have been possible, and while we negotiated such a comprehensive agreement, the progress of the iranian program, which has now been brought to a stop in many ways, would have continued. this is therefore a crucial step on the way to a comprehensive agreement and makes it possible to set about negotiating one. the right honorable gentleman asked some specific questions. he asked about how the agreement relates to the plant at fordow. the agreement specifically refers to that: "iran announces that it will not make any further advances of its activities at the natanz fuel enrichment plant..., fordow...or the arak reactor." footnote 2 on the second page of the agreement states in relation to fordow that there should be

"no further enrichment over 5% at 4 cascades now enriching uranium", and no feeding of uranium hexafluoride into the other 12 cascades and so on. there are therefore specific requirements on that plant. as for each of the plants, its longer-term future, including whether it operates at all, will be up to the final and comprehensive agreement and must be addressed at that stage. the right honorable gentleman asked about inspections at parchin. that remains a point of difference between the iaea and iran, including in their latest talks, and it is another aspect of the iranian program that must be addressed as part of a comprehensive and final settlement.

the right honorable gentleman asked about the urgency. on that, it is important to put the $7 billion of sanctions relief into perspective, because he referred to it as being effective immediately. the $7 billion of sanctions relief is actually available to iran over the six-month period once that period has begun, which we hope will be by the end of january. a good deal of the $7 billion involves the unfreezing of assets, so those assets will be unfrozen in stages. iran will not therefore receive $7 billion on the first day, and then decide whether to implement its side of the agreement. it is also important to see that $7 billion in perspective. in january, iran's oil minister acknowledged that the fall in oil exports as a result of sanctions was costing iran between $4 billion and $8 billion every month. reports suggest that iran currently has between $60 billion and $100 billion of assets frozen overseas that it cannot access.

the $7 billion of relief is therefore a very small proportion of the total frozen assets and of the total effect of sanctions applied to iran. that is why i have said that how we apply sanctions relief leaves iran with a huge incentive, since it wants wider relief from sanctions, to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement. that will help to maintain the urgency, but of course all our diplomatic activity -- seeking to maintain the momentum behind the agreement, and to ensure that it is implemented and that we can go on to negotiate a comprehensive settlement -- will also convey that urgency. the right honorable gentleman can be assured that we will leave no stone unturned to try to bring that about. >> may i briefly add my tribute to the right honorable member for blackburn (mr straw)? it is fair to say that the initiative he took all those years ago was not met with universal approval throughout the house. in the light of mr netanyahu's public response to this agreement, what assessment has my right honorable friend the foreign secretary made of the

risk of israel taking some unilateral action that might undermine the agreement, and what representations has he made to the israeli government against taking any such action? >> we are in constant touch with the israeli government. the prime minister discussed matters with prime minister netanyahu during the negotiation of the agreement over the past few weeks. it is important to understand the concerns of those who are sceptical about any agreement on the grounds of iran's past deceptions. it is also important to ask those people what the alternative to the agreement would be.

the alternatives would involve iran getting to nuclear weapons threshold capability, iran having a nuclear weapon, a conflict with iran or all those things. we have to be clear that there are compelling arguments for the agreement. we would discourage anybody in the world, including israel, from taking any steps that would undermine the agreement. we will make that very clear to all concerned. >> may i thank the foreign secretary, the right honorable and learned member for north east fife (sir menzies campbell) and my right honorable friend may i also, in turn, express my great appreciation and congratulations to the foreign secretary on the personal effort that he has put in to this negotiation? i recognise that the iranians are among the toughest negotiators in the world and

extract every last ounce from negotiations. i hope that the foreign secretary accepts that it is crucial that the momentum is kept up. the agreements that we made between 2003 and 2006 were undermined not only by the difficulties in tehran, but by a desperate faustian pact that was developed between hard-liners in tehran and hard-liners in washington who fed off each other. that ended up with president khatami being replaced by president ahmadinejad. the united states helped to produce that situation. lastly, may i ask a question that follows on from the previous question? will the foreign secretary make it clear to the americans that if prime minister netanyahu's efforts at the united states congress prevent president obama from continuing with the negotiations, the uk, germany,

france and the eu will have to detach themselves from america and reach their own conclusions, along with other members of the p5? >> i am grateful for the right honorable gentleman's remarks and i agree very much about the importance of maintaining momentum. it was possible to see that even over the past two weeks. the 10-day gap between the negotiations that took place two weeks ago and those this weekend brought forth a great deal of criticism in iran, in the us congress and elsewhere in the world that could easily have fatally complicated the efforts to reach agreement. considering the months of work that need to go into the implementation of this agreement and into attaining a comprehensive and final agreement, it is vital to maintain the momentum all the way. the agreements that the united states has made can all be implemented by executive order. that does not mean that the debates in congress are over.

what happens in the us congress is up to the united states. however, the right honorable gentleman can be assured that the united states administration are extremely strongly committed to this process. the leadership and persistence of secretary kerry were crucial in bringing about the agreement and the clarity of president obama on the matter is clear. i do not think that we need, at this point, to start looking at the other scenarios that the right honorable gentleman brought in of acting separately from the united states. >> order. i am afraid that we have got through only two questions in five minutes, which by normal standards would be very slow.

we need to speed up. we will be led in that important exercise by an immediate past minister of great experience and versatility. >> the wealth of detail that has been offered by my right honorable friend the foreign secretary indicates that this is no casual agreement, but one that has been carefully thought through. i pay tribute to his persistence and that of cathy ashton in holding the p5 plus 1 together. does he agree that for israel to be assured, every dot and comma of the interim agreement must be held to; that for the arab world to be reassured, we must make serious progress on a weapons- of-mass-destruction-free zone in the middle east; and that for the world to be reassured, the iranians must stop their murderous activities in syria immediately and contribute to an end to that conflict as quickly as possible?

>> absolutely. on a day of tributes -- we must not have too many tributes because i think there are many troubles ahead -- i pay tribute to work done by my right honorable friend on these issues in the foreign office over the past three and half years. he is right about all those things. this wealth of detail, as he put it, must be implemented in detail. it will also be helpful in the debates that take place in this country and the world over the next few days for that wealth of detail to be examined in detail by everybody who comments on it, and i hope they will take the trouble to do that. the extent to which the agreement means a change in any of iran's other policies, such as that on syria, remains to be determined. of course, we also encourage iran to play a more responsible role more broadly in world affairs. >> the european union, the government and the united states are to be congratulated on this brave and bold step towards reducing tension in the middle east. would it be right for the government now to approach israel and ask for a reciprocal gesture and for it to open its nuclear facilities to international inspection, in order to denuclearise the whole middle east? >> politics is the art of the possible, as i think we all know in this house, and it has turned out that this agreement is possible.

the honorable gentleman is trying to lead me into something that it would probably not be possible for us to obtain. >> does my right honorable friend agree that it is a most welcome moment for a world that has grown weary of conflict to see the great achievements of diplomacy and engagement? does he agree that a full and comprehensive agreement would not be possible without a proper interim agreement of this type, and that the key to confidence in the future will be verification and inspection? >> i absolutely agree with my right honorable friend. it is vital to build trust and confidence in the habit of working together to get to a comprehensive agreement. it is also vital to have time to create that comprehensive agreement. time was running short for any agreement, given what was happening in iran's nuclear program, so for all those reasons, this is an essential step on the way to a

comprehensive agreement. anyone who fancies that, alternatively, we could have just jumped to a comprehensive agreement, needs to revise that judgment. >> i warmly congratulate the foreign secretary on his role in this, but may i urge him to be a bit more effusive in his praise for baroness ashton for the simple reason that i think the agreement shows that where the european union can combine, it can achieve far more than individual countries working on their own? >> i am never lacking in effusion for the role of baroness ashton. she has handled things brilliantly, particularly in creating confidence between the iranian negotiators and the e3 plus 3 team. over the past three and a half years i dare say that i have praised her and worked with her a great deal more than the honorable gentleman has

experience of doing. >> we have the very unusual scenario of saudi arabia and israel agreeing with each other in publicly criticising the agreement. that is understandable: elements in both countries believe they have an existential fight on their hands that will get only tougher with a more confident iran. does the foreign secretary agree that we have a duty of care to those allies, and that there is a long way to go in persuading them that the agreement is in their best interests? >> yes, we do have a duty to understand those concerns. as i said, given past history on this matter we should never be surprised that some people are sceptical about the agreement, and we should understand those concerns. it is therefore incumbent on us to explain the detail and say how we will keep up this work, and to maintain the confidence of as many nations as possible

in this work. that will include discussing the issue in detail and extensively with both countries mentioned by my right honorable friend. >> i congratulate the right honorable gentleman, my right honorable friend the member for paisley and renfrewshire south (mr alexander), secretary kerry, and all others involved on achieving this exceptionally important agreement. it must be hoped that not only will it lead to iran re-entering the ternational community, but that it will ameliorate oppressive aspects of its internal policies. will the right honorable gentleman point out to the prime minister of israel, who yesterday said that nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons in the world -- he should know because he has a

stockpile of several hundred nuclear warheads and the missiles with which to deliver them -- and who in addition refuses to sign the nuclear non- proliferation treaty, that any attempt to damage or attack the agreement in any way will be unacceptable and will be opposed? >> as i have said, we would strongly discourage any country from seeking to undermine the agreement, but i have not seen any sign that any country will do so in any practical way. every country in the world understands how serious that would be. some may disapprove of the

agreement, but they know it has been made by, among others, the five permanent members of the un security council, and that it must be given its chance. i believe it will be given its chance. >> yes, i heard some of mark fitzpatrick's comments yesterday in the media. i thought they were well informed and balanced in coming to the conclusion that it was a good deal. he did so on the basis of the analysis carried out in the iiss. anyone who goes through the detailed examples i have given to the house and who sees the range of activities of the iranian nuclear program that are covered, how specifically they are covered, and the importance attached in the agreement to obtaining a comprehensive agreement, will be very

reassured. should we not be very much on our guard against that? >> we will be on our guard against any attempt to undermine the agreement, but it has the backing of the us government, russia, china, france and britain -- the five permanent members of the security council and it has clearly received widespread support around the world. therefore, as i have said, we would discourage anyone from undermining it, but i believe the world will give the agreement the chance to succeed. my right honorable friend is right to be cautious if not sceptical. to persuade us of the genuineness of iran's

intentions, would it not help if it were to end its involvement in terrorism in that region of the world, including in syria, as my right honorable friend the member for north east bedfordshire (alistair burt) has rightly said; and end its involvement in the repression of religious minorities, including christians and jewish people, in iran? would it also not help if iran stopped the hate speech against israel, a recent example of which came from the supreme leader, who just a few days ago referred to israel as "the sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region"? that seems to have escaped the attention of the right honorable and learned member for north >> i agree on the importance of those issues and of iran changing its approach to them. clearly, the negotiations were solely on the nuclear program. it is right that they were, because in order to make progress, we must focus

exclusively on that. however, in our wider discussions with iran, which have become possible with the upgrading of our diplomatic relations that i have announced, we will want to address the full range of issues, including the sponsorship of terrorism in other countries and the hate speech to which my honorable i congratulate the foreign secretary and all those engaged in the negotiations, not least the iranians, on this major step forward in intertional diplomacy, and indeed thank them for it. however, to reiterate the comments of the right honorable member for north east is now the time to urge iran to do everything in her power to bring an end to the desperate civil war in syria? there are millions of refugees, and we have learned today that 11,000 children have been deliberately killed in syria, some at the hands of torturers. >> it is time to do that. it is too early to say whether

the agreement on iran's nuclear program foreshadows any other changes in its foreign policy. we would of course like to see such changes, particularly in relation to syria. we, with other countries, have worked hard to assemble the geneva 2 peace conference and in the past two hours, the date of the conference has been announced, and it will take place on 22 january. i urge iran to play a constructi and helpful role in the peace process. >> following on from the excellent question by my right honorable friend the member for mid sussex (nichas soames) on verification and inspection, does the foreign secretary agree that the iaea will need more resources to ensure that the interim agreement is fulfilled? >> the iaea will need to devote more resources to this from within its budget. on page two of the agreement, there is a long list of additional things it will be expected to do, including agreement on the safeguards approach from the reactor in

iraq, daily inspector access for various purposes, managed access to centrifuge assembly workshops and so on. the iaea has applied itself extremely well in trying to deal with iran's nuclear program in cent years, and it will be well up to those tasks. meg munn (sheffield, heeley)thee deal. that means that there will be constant discussion between the e3 plus 3 countries and iran,

which will require the iranians to respond to any concerns we have about inspection and verification. this is a big step forward in inspection, including intrusive inspection and verification, and we must keep up our determination to do that. >> over the years, several thousand iranian students have studied in the uk, with many paying full fees, renting properties and spending very large sums of money while resident here. will the foreign secretary clarify what consideration he has given to lifting the sanctions that prevent their families and sponsors from transferring money into the uk during their stay? will he at least consider nominating a single bank in the uk as a conduit for student support, much as the united states has done during the whole period of its sanctions against iran? >> i will look at those points as part of the step-by-step

upgrading of our bilateral relations. it is possible that in some cases students could benefit from the new authorisation rules in the european union that i mentioned. while iran cannot operate the embassy with iranian staff, we are considering it being able to increase the number of locally engaged staff who can help with such issues. there may be things that help people in that situation, but i will look at the issue in more detail. >> i thank the foreign secretary for his statement and draw his attention to what he said about momentum in the process in the region. i obviously hope that a detailed agreement is reached within six months.

will he now turn his attention to the need for a nuclear weapons-free middle east, and the importance of reconstituting the conference, which finland was supposed to have held, involving all countries in the region? without an agreement on a nuclear-free middle east, somebody will develop nuclear weapons or israel will go on being unchallenged as the only nuclear weapons state in the region. this is urgent. >> as the honorable gentleman knows, we are keeping our focus on that. i pay tribute to him for keeping his focus -- relentlessly -- in his questions in parliament, but we are also keeping our focus and continuing our work to bring the conference together. if we can carry our success on this agreement through to the success of a comprehensive and final settlement, it will be a big advance towards what he has been campaigning for and remove more of the excuses of other nations against such discussions.

what steps can he take to ensure that over the six months it not only stops work on nuclear enrichment, but stops supporting hamas, hezbollah and the assad regime? >> my honorable friend raises a wide range of wholly legitimate issues. we have many differences with iran, including on many of those issues and on its appalling human rights record. this agreement does not make any of those differences go away. i do not want to mislead the house. the agreement does not mean there is necessarily a change in its other policies, but it must be judged on its own merits and on whether it is operated in good faith and succeeds in dealing with the nuclear issue. of course, however, we will use the opportunity for dialogue with iran to raise the sorts of issues he describes. keith vaz (leicester east) >> i join others in

congratulating the foreign secretary and my right honorable friend the member for blackburn (mr straw) on all their work. the foreign secretary previously announced the appointment of ajay sharma as the charg? d'affaires in tehran, but our embassy remains closed. bearing in mind the 81,000 british iranians resident in this country who wish to see their relatives, what progress can be made to ensure the embassy is opened as quickly as possible? >> we will take a step-by-step approach. ajay sharma, who, as the right honorable gentleman says, is the new non-resident charg? d'affaires, has been closely involved in the talks and will visit iran shortly. if visits in both directions by officials go well, we will contemplate other steps that could lead ultimately to the reopening of embassies, but i

judge it better to take a step- by-step approach. in a different way from the nuclear program, that, too, requires the building up of trust, confidence and, above all, clarity that a reopened embassy could operate properly and with all the normal functions of an embassy. we would have to get clarity from the iranians on that before we could reopen an embassy, so we will continue to take a step- >> given that syria and iran are joined at the hip, no such agreement would have been reached unless a plan for an attack on syria had gone ahead. we are so busy conserving praise, can we have a pet in the back for this parliament for its role in preventing such an ill considered move?

>> i am always one to give a pat on the back to parliament, even when i disagree with it. i do not agree with the analysis of my honorable friend at all. i do agree with others that the contemplation by the united states produced a very important breakthrough on the dismantling of syria's chemical weapons. >> thank you, mr. speaker. congratulations to the foreign secretary for his role along with secretary of state kerry. doesn't the agreement show the effectiveness of the coordinated union action just as the agreement on normalization

between serbia and kosovo some several months ago was an effective demonstration on that and that we need effective corporation to get results? >> i do regard it as a revolutionary thing to say indeed it often helps. the scale effectiveness of eu sanctions has made a big difference on this issue. it is important to add that here the work with the united states has been indispensable. such an agreement cannot be made without the united states. this is something that includes european unity and goes beyond european unity. that is why it is so powerful.

>> he can now speak forcefully on his feet. sir edward lee. >> how can we trust a terrorist regime which poses great damage to israel and has a long history of lying? this is our own chief negotiator. creating -- we able to complete. they go on in reaching -- enriching, they go on pocketing money. what is to stop them from holding more blackmail in six months time? >> how can we trust people with whom we have any differences? the answer is this agreement is

so specific and so extensive. we will soon be able to see whether they can be trusted or not. we will be able to judge whether the commitments --if we take the approach that whatever we agree the iranians cannot be trusted, then we can never have an agreement on this issue. that would not allow us to test whether agreements can be implemented. that would be a disastrous course to embark upon. >> there was the election of the moderate president in iran who stood on a platform of improving relations with the west. we had the debate on the proposed attack on serial in august -- the attack on syria in august.

>> i think this is a similar question than the one from my honorable friend earlier. it is a hypothetical question because such action did not take place. the debate produced a change of policy by russia and we are seeing the dismantling of syria's chemical warfare program. it is idle to speculate what could have happened in different scenarios. relations with iran should be seen on their own terms. they are not necessarily related to other policies of iran, to their involvement in syria. we should be careful of making those linkages. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> there has been a terrible shadow cast over the middle

east. i welcome this landmark agreement. my friend was hoping to be here. it is a commitment to see this through. can he confirm that they will have full and free access to all of iran's facilities? >> i am grateful for my honorable friend. to give them the flavor of what is in the agreement, there is provision in the agreement that requires the provision of information to the iaea, including information on iran's plan, a description of each building, a description of scale of operation for each location engaged, information on uranium mines and information on source

material, all to be produced within three months of the adoption of these measures. it would involve the provision of a lot more openness and information to the iaea. >> at the risk of sounding like the ugly fairy godmother at christening -- could the foreign secretary outline what discussions for the need for the reintroduction of sanctions if required? >> that is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. these sanctions are either suspended sanctions, not lifted or abolished or together. or they are the unfreezing of a specified amount of frozen assets on a one-off basis.

the sanctions usually are reversible if the commitment entered into by iran are not carried out. >> mr. simon hughes. >> we are mindful of the proof of iran for inspection verification for the next six months. might iran be encouraged to participate in the other conversations in the middle east in relation to syria and other issues in relation to israel and palestine? >> i hope so. there have been several questions about this. other aspects of iranian foreign policy will change. if iran would accept along with

the rest of the world last year's geneva communiqué on syria as the basis for further discussions, many countries would be much more open to their involvement and future talk. that is up to them and hope they respond positively. >> i warmly welcome this breakthrough. the foreign secretary has referred to the future of discussions about that. what's back is there of some movement on the practice of the r rating government of imprisoning church pastors? >> we would all hope there would be movement on those irrespective of anything on the nuclear issue. that is one example of a truly appalling human rights record. and so we will want to discuss

human rights with iran as part of our bilateral discussions. we will impress on them the importance of universal human rights and of the positive impression it would make on the world if they were to deal with these issues as well. it is much too early to say. >> can i add my support to this agreement? it has taken long to this limited point of progress. the track record makes it difficult to have constructive dialogue. it would be worse to turn our backs on this agreement. if iran implements the deal in good faith -- >> i am grateful for his support and wise words about that. only iran can determine if they implement it in good faith. in are dealing with foreign ministers, i do believe in reaching a deal and about and

lamenting the deal. i help he will continue to have the necessary support in iran. to make sure the agreement is fully implemented. >> pat gloss. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the need for iran to operate in good faith but that is not we have seen in recent. decades is there a plan if iran has not complied with this agreement? >> the plan, we would not be

able to renew the agreement. as i was pointing out earlier, all of the sanctions that we have signed up to is reversible. it would not be repeated if iran does not permit this agreement. i think they have a clear understanding, and that is part of the pressure on them to do it. >> mr. bob blackman. >> thank you, mr. speaker the interpretation seems to be coming out of iran and that the world has -- if the agreement falls apart. what can my friend say to the house and the world about iran

sticking to what we believe has been achieved? >> all of us in this house in the 1990's are used to functioning without sleep. just to be clear, this is not a recognition of the right to enrich, which we do not believe exist. the agreement, a comprehensive solution. this would enable iran to enjoy basic rights to nuclear energy, for peaceful purposes with a mutually defined enrichment program limited to practical means. to get to that point, iran needs to detail all of the detailed measures.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i have the adjusting privileged to visit iran after a 21 year gap, can i warmly welcome the progress that has been made for everyone who has been responsible for the advances being made leading to this agreement and at the same time echo the concerns by mr. blackburn about the risks of agreement both in iran and elsewhere who do not want this to the don to more permit agreement. and remembering the frustration at the time, opening the door for greater understanding. can i urge all concerned to do everything possible to not let this opportunity to rift out of our reach? >> yes, absolutely. i am conscious of the importance

of that. that is one of the recent it has been important to respond quickly to irans readiness to make such an agreement. it is possible for people in iran to see. there are compromises that can be made and it is in the interest of everybody to do so. i think showing that quickly gives the opportunity to those in iran who want to be able to carry that on for the future. >> mr. ben wallace. >> can i congratulate my friend for all the work and the other nations they have done to get into agreement. of course, inspection and verification will be the best way to put aside those who oppose this deal.

when the president was part of the team in the past, he was instrumental in getting iran to sign up for the protocol of the nuclear proliferation treaty. is that something we should seek in future? the best way is through you when verification. >> we would want iran to observe the protocol. this will need to be discussed in a comprehensive agreement. he will be aware that iran's observance of the protocol would be dependent and they would have to have a vote about that in the iranian system. that could introduce an additional duplex the.

that is something we would want them to do. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we welcome this agreement as a first step in a long process. president obama and the american congress stopping the foreign secretary -- if it is sufficient this is a very serious issue. [indiscernible] >> the debate we have on whatever side anyone is on with military action related to syria and not iran is very much part of our policy to promote a political solution in syria, including a feast conference on

syria. -- including a peace conference syria. i met with people in his temple in a peace conference. that has now been announced for the 22nd of january. we will do everything we can to find a peaceful solution on syria. >> mr. stephen o'brien. >> i apologize for missing the first few moments of the statement. that is a very significant admission. on this occasion, honesty should be rewarded. i must say, not withstanding his immense distinction, i am afraid it will not be allowed again. he has been very candid. >> i thought transparency was the better decision.

it would depend on the transparency of the verification and how much trust can be placed on trying to in greater security. that is more widespread than just the nuclear issue. >> if everyone involved is transparent, there will be no problem in the implementation of this agreement. i would strongly encourage that. it is going to require in addition to all the monitoring and the joint commission, any agreement is going to require good faith and commitment from the other side. that has to come from political will. we will do everything we can. it will only work if there is a real commitment from iran as well. >> my honorable friend has

spoken about a new charges d'affaires to tehran. they did millions of pounds worth of damage, which they now owe in compensation to the british taxpayer. is any progress being done in securing that compensation? >> a very good question. the united kingdom is entitled for the damage done and compensation will be one of the issues we need to discuss in this upgrading of diplomatic relations. the most important consideration will be whether an and the city an embassy will be allowed to run.

but we will address that. >> an agreement signed with the nuclear weapon capacity in north korea. [indiscernible] we all know how that has ended. how confident is he that history will not repeat itself and the monitoring will be sufficient to ensure it has transpired with the progress? >> the provision for monitoring is very expensive and very detailed, to a much greater degree. how confident can we be? time will tell. i have spoken about the sincerity. implementing is another matter. i would only say that the

provisions will be detailed in iran. we will be able to see whether confidence is justified or not. >> mr. james morris. >> would you not agree that the concession on your radiant enrichment -- uranium enrichment, that iran should stop all your radiant enrichment at that plant? >> it is true there is a difference from un security council resolutions in the past. it is true it would not a possible to make any agreement with iran without this aspect to such an agreement and it would go a long way to the preamble to

the agreement that talked about the transparency measures and that iran reaffirm that will iran ever see or develop any nuclear weapons. it is when the world can be satisfied about that last sentence that it is then possible to make an agreement with the enrichment provisions of which i spoke earlier. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the concern of many of my constituents with uranium enrichment. what assurance can they give us, no matter what interpretation has been given, iran's right to enrichment has been recognized. >> i gave earlier the interpretation of that so-called right to enrich. we referred to it in the way i

read earlier. there is nothing vague about the agreement. iran announces they will not enrich uranium over 5% for the duration of the six months. >> i welcome the foreign secretary's personal commitment that was arranged over the weekend. i am -- confirm to the house that any release of oil revenue will only happen if iran is up to the commitment they made over the weekend and their ongoing commitment to an ongoing agreement. >> yes, absolutely. this is over a six-month period and the release of frozen assets on a one-off basis that can be

stop at any time. it will be important to see they are fulfilling the agreement in order for confidence to be maintained. so the position is. >> mr. andrew percy. >> past actions predict future actions. iran does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. there is no doubt that many of our closest allies and friends are deeply concerned about this. will the foreign secretary commit to -- their views taken into account also? >> absolutely. a fair point about the need to work with other countries.

we should always understand skepticism about such agreements, given the past record of iran. it is important to understand and to think about what on earth the alternatives would be. my judgment, this is a good enough agreement. the alternatives are iran developing a nuclear weapon or getting to the threshold of that or a conflict with iran. we will work very closely with other countries, reassuring them along the way. >> what a choice. >> thank you, mr. speaker. isn't it the case that iran is the biggest and nastiest bully in the playground?

they have been given their catapults back. can the foreign secretary confirm to the house that iran is not in a position to complete a nuclear weapon? >> that is right. all the aspects that i have listed stopped from going forward over this six month period. some of them have rolled back. the copperheads of agreement we are seeking after this step will make clear that under no circumstances will iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons. this is not so much a case of giving them their catapult back. there'll never have a catapult.

>> thank you very much. the election of president rouhani came as a surprise to some. he was the only candidate to say we have to change the direction of iran because the sanctions were so crippling. can i urge my friend to outline to the house the efforts to tighten their grip on sanctions if iran does not stick to its side of the deal? >> i have no doubt if iran does not stick to its side of the deal, limited sanctions of which i have spoken which comes from the suspension of sanctions would certainly come to an end. the very breakdown of an

agreement that we and our partners have entered into in good faith, there would be strong pressure for an increase of sanctions on iran. >> point of order. >> we will have an encore presentation of q&a this evening with robin nagle. experience asher a sanitation worker and why all americans should be aware of the sanitation process. that will be at 7 p.m. eastern here on c-span. foreign service worker walter has worked in pakistan, saudi arabia, and turkey. he is currently employed at the u.s. embassy in india. this is 50 minutes.

>> john was hinting at the origin of this report. it went up on the website last week. i am not going to go through it because i think you can read it, but i want to point out how the things came about and where it takes us. as john said, what was fascinating, as we looked at 26 reports since 9/11 dealing with amazing iteast, how was that how few of them had been spoken to the officers in the field. in the sense of we have a lot of advice coming, that the best givecan come up with is public diplomacy more money. money does not solve all the problems. and so that was one of the incentives for doing this. what goes on over there? how does it work? i've been associated with public

diplomacy and spent the past 10 years working in that region. the air middle east, pakistan -- the arab middle east, pakistan, afghanistan, and if you look at the officers in that region to come up with suggestions, challenges, what faces us out there, i stayed away from policy because that is the white house's prerogative, to what do we do overseas when we get there? i have taken in a lot from what i have seen, but everything i put in this report is mine, not the state department's report. i can do some independent thinking. that was important through that clearance process to make sure that i speak in my voice and nobody else's. something else that was interesting coming out of this is defining what public diplomacy is. there has been talk about this -- and/11, but basically

there has been a lot of reporting -- but to define what it is, and one thing that was striking, one thing that came out in the report is we hear about messaging. washington, are you messaging? are you getting this message right? public diplomacy is larger than that. messaging is something we do in the press, the public diplomacy is a panoply of programs and to engagethat we use the audience is out there, to make them more accepted to more -- to american foreign policy. what we spend our money on, the projects going on overseas, and a person who was always pointing out, he repeats this so often, i can save, it is the sum of these two things. adam is no longer what the state department, so i can mention that. it is true, we probably spend

3/4 of our money spending on fulbright, international bidders , targeting those people that can make a difference in the opinion landscape. target the way you can certain people who are very important, and the shotgun effect when we use the media to reach broader audience. in washington that was not was fully understood and i wanted to put that in the report, that it is not just messaging, not just how you engage in audiences, how you make them see what you are doing and show them we have a point of view that is respectable. i think it is important if you look at the cover of the report, if you see who is on there, it is not a spokesman on there. that is an english-teaching officer, someone in pakistan with the. he stood for that other side of public diplomacy that is not often reported, but english teaching is something we use effectively out there, the target it to certain audience we

think are more at risk, but it is a way we get out our word to a to for an audience and give them a broader sense of what is going on in the world, and maybe they will be able to inform other people what is going on as well as getting ahead in their own lives because english is such added advantage. it was important to have that on the cover and not a spokesman at a podium. ofould like to say to wrap why the report -- there's something else that motivates to love us. officers in the field are very patriotic. so many of us feel really strongly about what we are doing them a but nobody had really look at what we were and what we were doing. this is a reported where i wanted to say here is how we see what is going on overseas. here is how we think it should be implemented. this is how we will take something that comes from the white house and shape it for the audiences out there. the heroes of my report are that public diplomacy ocean in the

state department, the ones charged with leading the diplomacy efforts worldwide. i wanted to tell their story and get out what goes on. that is why i took what i've got here, i spoke to public diplomacy officers, and this is a summation of this. i wanted to get that story from what was going on, because the my colleaguese of in the state department that are overseas, working in different -- difficult environment, engaging audiences, making them more receptive to our policy initiatives. if you look at the report itself, and i do not want to go through it all, but i think i have not engaged in policy structure because that is what the white house does. i tried to give a how-to outline of how we do overseas, the challenges and opportunities we have. to highlight a couple of them, more than a couple, but one thing i think it's interesting is when we approach societies, i

divided the report, in telling versus's story engaging attitudes in a country. people are unclear what we put an emphasis on, and what i have said is every country will be different, and that is why that ties in the field are so important, because they can help us work through. up, whatould weight u are we trying to do here? do we want to take people overseas who want -- who might turn violent and say they do not take that route, but that they do not go the violet route. in this part of the world, after 9/11 it is a question we have to ask. every country is different. everyone of them will have a different percentage assigned to one side or the other. i wanted to highlight it very much, and not everybody understands we have these wall functions out there. felt and i mentioned in the report that we need a third

office, and we created what in pike -- in pakistan to engage in changing attitudes and behaviors, if her from press or kirk -- cultural affairs work. it was important to vote out there that there are a number of different ways to approach these questions. in places like pakistan and afghanistan, we have so much money given to us to do public diplomacy we have the lecture of being able to create anything we want. that is what west road to are here. even officers without resources can do a lot to change things. brought across is the diverse as he of audiences. one thing is you hear people say that muslims or something like that. there are many different audiences and many effort types of muslims believing a lot of different things. people need to become attuned to that right away and understand certain communities believe what they, another community believes another.

in washington people do not understand those differences. it is understand that it is interesting to understand who is more susceptible to a message, who do we have to work harder with, who is important, who is not, but diversity out there is incredible. need toin with the speak to these people in the languages they speak. in india it is funny, i bring this up, do you ever see two indians speaking english to each other? unless they have an english language and comic, they will speak hindi to each other. east, oncele they engage in each other, they need to be speaking those languages. in thoseo be there languages. it is where you have to listen to them to what they say, not rely on english. those english language

newspapers out there, i remember in pakistan i was speaking to an editor, i said, can you tell what is this about? they said, these are for you, the foreigners. this is not something that pakistanis used to communicate with each other. that was an important insight, and is one thing that we have to make sure we do not rely on english to out there to interpret what is going on because that is not where the action is. it is in the vernacular and it is important to be there. i wanted to talk about security, which i did in here. in afghanistan or around pakistan, and libya and yemen,, security is a huge concern for us. in other places while we have these embassies that are much more secure, real public diplomacy takes place outside and disease. i argue people we want to reach do not come into our facilities. that is where the value is, going into their institutions and meeting them out there.

i quoted thomas friedman who came to turkey after the bombings in turkey and he looks at our new consulate, and remarked how this was a bad message. it can be or it is a difficult message out become it can become public diplomacy officers, you yet out of that environment. that is vital. that is why that is not such a key stumbling lock. it is very important to see these other places -- you get out and that is what officers do. finally, or not finally -- sorry -- the next steps in the report by set out a series of recommendations. one thing that is important is and i go back to this 26 report written since 9/11, the one

recommendation for everybody was to spend more money on public diplomacy. that is not going to happen. basically, what i tried to come up with with jeannie's help was we could come up low-cost or no- cost solutions, because the state department is not looking to dump tons of money into something new, and in this budget environment it will be a while. what we came up with a lot of the things we could do by shifting emphasize, real things the state department can do. i believe some of them are underway to a certain extent, and i looking forward to this afternoon speaking to a life of people to find out where we are in that way in the state department. say therap up and limitations of this report -- the limitation is obvious. it just deals with one part of the world. there is a whole world out there. people say, why did you not cover indonesia?

in india i am finding a series of public diplomacy ideas that are different than what i had in my report because i'm dealing with a different environment where we are running a country, working in a country that is up to 70% approval ratings, different from what we have that is covering this report. what i am saying is there were limitations because of time, money, effort, all that sort of thing, but i hope this will ark more reports of what we are doing overseas. it is vital that we understand public the promising. i'm delighted to go to state to speak to people who do that, and i will give them a mini report on my report. i will stop there. what i would like to do, i hope i have given a bit of an overview here. i hope you have a copy of the report, have read it, or looking forward to read is because there is a lot here that will define

something that has not been seen before. i am glad that the academics i brought in say we have not had a report from the field, and they have been awaiting this. it was delayed in coming up. the research for this went into 2012, but nowtwo they have something in the courses where they can look at what we're doing in the field and try to make judgments that might be different than what we hear if they were aligned on material coming out of here. thank you very much, and i look forward to some questions and answers. [applause] thank you, walter. as you suggest, there is a lot to chew on there. one thing you did not talk about at all in your report really was the issue of metrics. and one of the things i see the state department, in the fascination with metrics for

social media, because social media tends to produce area precise metrics. field,ur position in the what is your sense of the role of metrics, how do you use them, and how are people misusing metrics in ways that we have to stop? >> metrics is a question that is a difficult one or public diplomacy. you mentioned i was in advertising before, and you always had is the product sell or not? it was an interesting metric and well, theyot sell fired the ad agency. you would pay that way. they tended to play the -- to blame the ad agencies first. metrics are something that is difficult. we know that public diplomacy in conservatives to the fault of the soviet union. we talked about it, but it played a role in undercutting

the intellectual likelihood of the soviet union. today, it is difficult because you can't measure inputs, but not outputs. thee is some work done in private sector, mostly when someone takes an action to understand that they have absorbed that idea -- i mention it is not just the tweets you s you havethe retweet to count. that's one way we do it, but nobody has come up with an idea that says they have changed the way of looking at the united states based on what we have given them their any have tried to do that, the vehicle to do. i did come up with a recommendation, and this is over the years speaking to help whene, hill staffers, things -- one thing we need are narratives. how does this stuff play out red large? -- writ large? we can bring to get all these public diplomacy programs are on the road, what message are we

getting out, pointing to success stories, nodding having exact metric saying we moved the needle from 50 to 60, but saying we are putting out these ideas, there is an effort, it makes sense, and if your narrative aches cents, able can trust your on to something. that is one of the recognitions i have there, to get out to the hill, get to the state department in the field, more about these narratives that are going on. thatd would that suggest the number of people engaged, who are inof people less important than creating a dynamic, and we need to be more attuned to the dynamics we create rather than the size of the audience i mean, it sounds to me you are recommending sort of looking at

waves and creating ripples rather than trying to measure the force. >> i think that is right. if you go on broadcast television, you get huge numbers. how many of those people are important to the influencing policy? that is an open question. we have exchange programs and everything we do where we say that as someone who is important to the debate, we want to expose them more, get the people on an exchange program in the united states where they can see what we do. you make judgments about the value of the audience out there. some more viable than others. when you put it together you draw the conclusion of what you're getting out there, what word is going out there, how much you are causing a debate. to actually measure the impact is difficult. you have got to put all these factors together on that one idea you want to get across and maybe there is another idea and how those blend together. you have got to use all these tools. there are probably at anyone post you could draw up a p.d.

toolkit that would have 25 things that we basically's and it is all from using a local staff in the vernacular language using the ambassador as a speaker, do use and econ officer as a speaker, using exchange programs to bring in speakers into these countries -- all these different things to get the message out, hitting different audiences that we think our part. how you measure the impact, what moves the needle, that is important. yous a manager, how do think about the problems of allocating resources across the entire tool kit? goingthe beginning of anywhere, you have to sit back and say what are our objectives here? this is something that i have learned that csis and going to exercises with you and around the was trying to see what goals are upfront and do not worry about the limitation write a but set out the strategic goals. to mixs a tendency implementation and strategic

goals, and you have to see them as something separate and reach into the toolkit at what works best in that environment. that becomes a judgment call him a more an art than science. if you're in an open country like india, you can do a lot of things. i'm getting out of my where were the report is. you might have difficulties in other places where it is more closed. in the middle east you have a tremendous variety of countries, more open than others, but some can't surprise use. when i was in rio. i was amazed at how open they were at engaging in so many topics. outside of saudi arabia, people do not realize, and when you were over there, you're been able to engage and you know that receptivity to what is going on. you try to judge what is the best way to engage the audiences i want to reach. use it as a blend of those two things, the broad media with a more narrow targeted approach. pursued one other

line before we open it up. mostly spent your career overseas, but you had a lovely year in washington. when you presumably are at a --rget for other indices' embassies'average programs, for public diplomacy in washington. who do you think was especially good? what kinds of things did you see as a target where you said the, you know what can i recognize what they are doing and they are being effective, and we should try to take a page from that and do what we are doing overseas. >> an interesting question. what struck me is how rarely i would think people did engage me . working oners were specific countries, that one and this he will engage them, but engaging more broadly you do not come across it as much in the state department. that said you end up with events, certain things-- right?were at csis,

>> when i was here? >> yeah. >> we engaged in a love audiences. i do not think anybody targeted me to same way i would have expected. i would think they could do more of that. atcsis being my favorite, obviously, have a lot of ideas and a lot of these people they want to engage more with. but i do not see it as much as i would have expected. when i looked at audiences when i was her, i went other thing tanks and i look at the audience as was struck that some embassy people, but i would have expected more. i think probably they be it is because -- i mentioned this, the public the policy function of the state department is unique. every other country does not seem to have the same way. i found that state department people were much more around the city, hitting around them and i

see that overseas can engage in the think tax overseas. i noticed other countries doing it less than we do perhaps because they do not have a indicated function -- a dedicated function of how am i going to engage that audience. i see that less and less. the audience i see a lot of people who know more about the diplomacy than i do. let me turn it over to you. yes, sir. do me a favor, three things -- wait for a microphone, identify yourself, and to ask only one question. >> thank you so much. a good presentation. i am a retiree, originally from pakistan. your recommended approach in a muslim country is the same yardstick for keenan's like saudi arabia -- four kingdoms like saudi arabia or some of the

middle eastern countries and pakistan, like a democratic country/ >> one thing that comes out is a friday that is out there. we have to shift gears. at one point i talked about a good arabist can take 15 years of training, the guy who can understand advances in the regional culture, the local cultures, effort arabic that is spoken arabic out there. it is important we recognize diversity and everybody who works overseas sees that. what works in saudi arabia is not something that will work in jordan. they have different levels of openness. in saudi arabia, we had an american archaeology team out there to him was something new and different. in jordan, they have had them therefore 100 years, even longer years, there for 100 back to the ottoman days. it is different.

every country you have to look at it as a different activity. that is one region best reason why you have to have the guy in the field them met with a woman trying to interpret a decent societies and say what works best here, because as you said, some are open, some have a democrat political process, others do not. others have a monarchy. all these systems demand a different part of the 20 kit to go into action. >> how do you think about working a monarchy? you are now in the world's largest democracy, where you have served in one of the world's most important monarchies. thedo you think about targets for public diplomacy in a system where you are not trying to target elected officials? >> some people say there is an audience of one when you have a monarchy. it is much more broader. there are a lot of influences

they. the king goes out and goes on trips to meet his subjects, and there are a lot of people eating advice, so i think the important thing is who are these people, who are opinion leaders there? you want to engage them as much as possible. i think all over that region you ofl with varying degrees democracy and lack of democracy, but you still always have people who influence the debate. you always have a guy who will go on tv and talk about something. ugek shows are hiu business in this part of the world. these guys will have different ways of portraying it. there are those who do not support government so much or will have a different way. the key thing is to find out who are those people. a systematic watch live television, something kids are good at, can -- you will find who are the people who speak

most about the subject you want, and within three weeks of watching, you can come up with i am noticing these people coming up, and they are influencing debate. you probably want to engage those guys. they will be important to you. and so i think it is listen to look at who is out there, and come up with two are those people who are important. it is not just one guy at the top. george washington university. you make a strong case for looking at public diplomacy in the field and for the most part look at the state department's role in the field. you have also served in large type for embassies where there are a variety of departments and agencies of the u.s. government, and in india you have a strategic dialogue that involves different agencies. could you reflect on who does public diplomacy in the field, in addition to the state department, and what is the state department's role in leveraging those actors? ng i can think of is

usaid. in india it is huge. it varies. they are influencing the public debate out there. they have a public role. it has been different with what the state department is. they coordinate in everything they do, so you hope there is a unified message, that they are key communicators overseas. there are other agencies like -- health and human services can be one, cdc, there is all these people doing things. you want to capture the good things they are doing and expect why it is important what they're doing and chose the partnership between united states and other branches of government. it is not strict tossing, but other things that are going on. it is important people see that. in my report i focus on the state department because we have the lead role, but there are a

lot of others that support the efforts and do a lot to support public diplomacy. good morning. from the bureau of middle east north africa affairs at this date carmen. walter and i work together. walter, i would love to hear your comments on how you approached issues of religious faith and tolerance, both in saudi arabia and in pakistan and and some of the creative programs that i know you did in saudi arabia, would be of interest. what i am sure he is about is avoided an inflammatory exchange or engagement, but at a level it more of mutual understanding and of interest in the issue on both sides. >> yeah. religion is a fascinating one. i speak in my report, i think we have to realize the

establishment clause is not to avoid religion, to appoint a specific religion, and it is an effective way to engage people. i think of someone who can to saudi arabia when i was there who was jewish and his father had recently died. in the jewish faith you read every days certain passages from the torah to mention -- to honor your father. when he mentioned that to the saudi's, they love that. he was open about what he was doing religiously and they respected that. we have to be open about that. it is something that is important for them. there is much more religion in their daily debate than you might hand here. we cannot shy away from that am a but rather embrace it as something that is worthwhile, and explain -- one dean -- -- one thing -- explaining that the united states is religious. that is always surprising to audiences when they can. a journalist in boston, said he

had 10 churches in boston, and he never realized americans were so religion is. i think that is something that breeds a lacknd of trust in who we are, because religion is so important to them, and what they see coming out of america does not portray that as much as that is part of our lives. i think at state we have to embrace that. not proselytize, i'm not saying that, but be open that we are religious and believe that, too, because it opens a lot of doors for you when you speak about that. >> the other piece is when american religious figures to things that are polarizing in the middle east or seem to be disrespectful. other than toing explain that nobody speaks for the government and we have a big messy democracy? >> we do that a lot.

[laughter] there are a couple of well- publicized cases recently in which we need to engage on that and try to explain the first amendment. the first amendment is a tough one, because most countries do not have it. we are it. there are a lot more research and even in western europe and what you can say that in the united states. it is a hard concept get across because those people can use that and can get a lot of press, even though they have a very small following in the united states.