me, they eventually just call me a name. you're a racist. what does race have to do with what i'm saying? i want equality for everybody. i came to america, when i first -- my first job, i was -- as a new immigrant, i was reading everything. whenever i went to work, i read every note written on the wall, every map i see, i check, you know, as a new immigrant and i saw a sign at my work on the wall. nobody ever -- i notice nobody looks at it, and it says the following. "this institution does not discriminate in hiring on the basis of race, general origin, gender or race or anything." and i read it and re-read it and re-read it. to me, it was like, oh, my god, does that mean i'm equal to men?

[laughter] here i am, i'm coming from an area of the world where you have a totally different legal system for women, different from men. if you're a woman, your testimony in court is half the value of a man. can you believe this? so if i go to court, and i am testifying and there's a man testifying, and we contradict each other, he wins because he's a man. that's the law. that is not the culture. that's the legal system. so when you come suddenly to america and you're confronted that you're equal, it's almost like, oh, my god, i'm equal? how do i deal with that? really, it took me a while for me to really feel equal. it's not easy when you're living in a prison.

it's not easy to see the freedom right away. and that's why i'm speaking, because i love this country. i'm just very grateful for this country. it gave me my freedom. [applause] so ever since -- after 9/11 happened, a lot of americans, remember, were saying, where are the voices of the middle eastern people to speak against jihad and to stand up to this terrorism? you know, and i was one of the first people who started speaking. so i started speaking and gradually i felt i'm being silenced, i'm being shut up, and at the end now, they call me controversial, they call me islamaphobe and racist. here i am, i'm being invited, on college campuses to speak and i used to speak every semester six, seven times and especially

during the time when there is israel apartheid week. every year there's an attack on israel on campuses and it's an anti-semitic week, really. and the jewish kids are intimidated. if there was no israel apartheid week, i don't care to go but there has to be some balance so they invite me to speak and they are desperate to hear my message and my message is very reasonable, by the way. i'm not attacking people, like i said, i'm attacking the ideology so now, no you can't come. so anti-israel groups have all the right to speak on college campuses, nobody's bothering them and pro-israel people are silenced and being called names so here i am after 9/11, after the ask, where are the middle eastern people in america to

speak against radical islam and now we're being silenced. we're not politically correct. so this is a very strange situation, for a country to reject or stand against people who are speaking about their enemy. i don't know if it ever happened in history. i have -- you know, i study a lot of history. i don't remember any nation that made it taboo to speak about an enemy that's actually declaring war against that nation. it's very strange. it's like a stockholm syndrome. and we are now very compliant, very appeasing, and we are -- is it any coincidence, is it any coincidence that first election

-- and i'm not a psychology, by the way, i took a few classes of psychology in -- at my university. you don't need a psychiatrist really to understand, is it a coincidence that the first -- first person to elect as president after 9/11, his name rhymes with osama? is this a freudian thing. really, this is something that we have to think about. why are we doing this? so we are defending the culture that flew airplanes into our buildings. now, this is what america's doing.

and we are preventing our -- you know discussing it even in our homeland security, calling anything related islam. and now we need to confront and understand what -- what is islam, what does it do to a nation? what does islam -- why is it so dangerous? what does it do to a nation? and i'll give you an example. 1400 years ago in the seventh century, there were two superstars in the world and they were not the united states and the soviet union. [laughter] they were the byzantine empire and persian empire. egypt was part of the byzantine empire. egypt was a christian nation.

egypt used to have queens, not just one or two, many queens. not just cleopatra. we had nefertiti, we had hatshepsut, the most brilliant one. she ruled and she had slaves, slaves all over. egypt had one of the two countries that had slaves. and persian empire and byzantine empire were fighting, having 10-year wars between them. and the people started hating their leadership. and there comes out of the arabian peninsula a fresh army. they had a sword in one hand and the koran in the other hand and they were looking at these civilizations that had rivers, that had gold, that had beautiful women, and they wanted

to conquer them, they wanted to conquer jerusalem to end the memory of the jewish people. they conquered egypt and persia in the same year, the year 639. egypt's language was changed to arabic by a culture that we look down upon, the arabian -- nobody wanted to conquer arabia. had nothing. it was a desert. they wanted to conquer us because we had the rivers, we had the wealth, we had the gold, we had the agriculture. so they came and conquered persia and egypt and their wealth, changed our religion and imposed a tax on anyone who practices anything other than islam, and all the money went to arabia.

egypt never saw its glory days again. and today egypt is like a third world country that cannot even rule itself. egypt has undergone a 1919 revolution, a 1952 revolution, a 2011 revolution, a 2013 counter-revolution and there is still talk about another revolution. is this what you isn't can happen to superpowers, ladies and gentlemen. islam, when they penetrate a country, because it's not -- it's a dysfunctional system. it oppresses human nature. it causes chaos. it has a very oppressive legal system, culture.

called sharia. i want to name you a few of the laws of sharia so you can judge for yourself the impact of the laws on society. not just the laws that humiliate women and beat women and kill women and stone women for sexual misconduct, put aside all of that. i'm sure you know that part. i'm going to give you a law under sharia that you will -- i'm sure you've hardly heard it and it's as follows. it's regarding government. it says the following -- a muslim head of state can come to power through seizure of power, meaning through force. can you believe it, if you have a law like that in your constitution? an american head of state can come to power through seizure of power, meaning, through force, revolution, assassination, coup

d'etat against the government and everybody cheers for them. hello, it's the new president. good! let's assassinate the old president. it's legal under islamic law, legal if the president is not enforcing sharia 100%. what does a law like that do? it makes a muslim head of state paranoid at the least. he surrounds himself with lots of guards and he starts to rule with an iron fist. is it a coincidence while all muslim countries have tyrants? it's not because everybody loves tyrants in the middle east, that's why they have tyrants? it's not because their nature is so bad. actually, some of the men who've led in the middle east really deep down inside them they're

good people but if they don't become tyrants, they will be assassinated. it all goes back to sharia law. and they want to bring sharia law in america. i'm just giving you one law that makes a nation unable to rule itself in peace. i'll give you another law that will never make a nation live in peace. it's the obligation of every muslim to do jihad, and this is the definition of jihad. according to their books, by the way, everything i'm saying is from their books. it's not like from weird book somewhere. no, no, this is mainstream islamic sharia books. here it says, every muslim must do jihad and not only every muslim individual but every muslim head of state must do

jihad against neighboring non-muslim countries. what is the consequence of a law like that? israel can never live in peace because it's surrounded by nations ruled by dictators afraid to be assassinated if they don't follow sharia and sharia tells them you have to do jihad against non-muslim countries, which is the closest non-muslim country in the middle east? israel. that's why we have an arab-israeli conflict. if the west just understand what sharia is, they will understand who's the victim and who's the oppressor in the middle east. they will understand the arab-israeli conflict but west doesn't want to understand because we have an idea in the west that religion must be protected. we have to protect religion. anybody who says this is my

religion, we have to give them all the rights, even if the religion has a law in it that if a person leaves that religion they must be killed. why is it that i cannot visit any muslim country? because i'll be killed on the street by anybody and the police will say, we never saw who killed her. this is happening every day in the middle east to christians who are being killed and nobody knows who killed them. nobody's in jail for the murder of christians in egypt or apostates. in sudan, a more radical country than egypt, it's not just people on the street who will kill an apostate. no, the government actually arrests you and puts you on trial and condemns you to death. even if you're a pregnant woman like what's happening there. did you hear about this?

ok. and according to mohammad, one time he did condemn a woman in the seventh century to death but she was pregnant and he said ok we have to wait until she delivers and then we kill her and they killed her after the baby was weaned so they're following exactly what's in their books so the problem is not the people, it's what's in their books and we have to stand up and say, what's written in your books is barbaric. when you condemn a whole group of people called jews, call them enemies of allah, that's barbaric. they are doing that and what happens because the jews rejected mohammad, they didn't want to convert to islam and they were living in medina with

him so he actually participated in killing almost 900 jewish men of one tribe. they beheaded these men. the first holocaust on the jews is not hitler. it was mohammad. and he expelled the rest of the tribes and then he took all the women as sexual hostages. does that remind you of what's happening in uganda now? uganda, the 300 young girls. nigeria. they're killing, they're -- the same thing. it's under islamic law, sharia, if you're in a world with non-muslims, you have the right to take the women as sexual slaves and there are people in the middle east today who are advocating you have to do this in the open.

by the way, some muslim women in london with their head completely covered, only their eyes, are carrying signs that what's happening -- what happens in nigeria is ok. hallelujah, they've converted 300 christian girls, hallelujah, they're saying. it doesn't matter how they convert them -- kidnap them, kidnapping minors and force marrying them, hallelujah! that is the value system that's totally contradictory from our value system. i don't -- what just scares me and i don't understand is why liberals who are supposed to be the holders of the feminist movement and freedom and democracy and let's burn our bras, ok, where are they? come defend me, i'm under attack.

[applause] the difference between the judeo christian culture and the islamic culture is huge. it's the opposite exactly. christians and judeo system concentrates on wanting to change yourself from within. and i didn't know that. when i was a muslim, i was an anti-semite. i didn't know better. that's how i was brought up. i came here and went to a synagogue with a girlfriend of mine and i said, ok, i'm going to hear them. of course, muslims, we curse them in the mosque, you know. that's what i thought, i thought everybody curses in churches and synagogues, they must be cursing muslims like we curse them so i sat there and my jaw dropped. they were praying for everybody, for all of humanity and i'm

like, oh, my god, that's so different. and they were constantly in the synagogue and the churches, constantly talking about how to fix yourself. we're all sinners, that's what they say in churches all the time. we're all sinners. what a concept, because in my religion of origin, they are all sinners. we are muslim. and we have -- in order to go to heaven. -- we have an order to change you in order to go to heaven. that's the difference between christianity and judaism and islam. christianity and judaism wants to change yourself, make yourself a better person, put the responsibility on you. muslim is consumed with changing the other and self criticism is a crime.

is this enough to make you understand? how much do i give you information to make you -- for instance, the name abdullah is the most popular islamic name. abdullah is slave of god. the way we look at god in islam, we're slaves, he is god. in christianity, we're children of god. what a concept. big difference. forgiveness is so important in the bible, both the jewish bible and the christian bible. forgiveness is so important and the seven deadly sins, they discuss fixing yourself and if all of society fixes itself, we're ok. this is basic psychology even. basic decency. let alone religion.

but in islam, muslim are forbidden from forgiving their enemies of allah. they are forbidden from forgiving jews. i was invited on arabic tv to discuss my book and what happened, they told me, your father was killed by israel and you're a traitor, you're not worthy of being his daughter, you, i mean, i was insulted bad and harassed because you forgave the people that killed him. i said, forgiveness is the best thing we can do and we should forgive them and they should forgive us. and honest to god, the guy almost -- wanted to kill me because he couldn't understand the concept of forgiveness. you can forgive your muslim friends but you can't forgive non-muslims. it's against islamic culture.

islamic ideology, and that's why it's very hard for a muslim to to truly, to truly be a good muslim and be really want to live truly in peace with the jews. it's an oxymoron and it goes back to why mohammad killed them. the minute muslims make peace with the jews and consider them not as pigs and enemies of allah like mohammad stated in the koran, if they -- if they eventually finally admit that they're human beings, by the way, oh, my god, they're human beings, they're not enemies of allah? then if we admit that, then our prophet was a murderer when he killed them. it's an existential problem for islam, so they hate education.

and islam doesn't have the confidence in themselves to stop the hate. actually, islam, they were discussing in egypt recently the punishment, you know, killing apostates and some young people in egypt were saying we shouldn't force people to convert to islam. we should leave it optional. and there comes one of the top leaders of islam and he addressed this. his name is kawhri, he is number one in islam and he said and the clip is on youtube, if we end the capital punishment for those who leave islam, islam will end. can you believe this?

it's like the pope, for christianity, like the pope, making a statement, if we don't kill catholics who leave catholicism, then catholicism will end. they have no confidence in their own religion. why should we have confidence in it ourselves? we shouldn't have confidence in it. we shouldn't give it the respect. those are people who don't accept forgiveness, redemption. want the only way under islam to go to heaven is to kill non-muslims in the jihad. my father was killed in the jihad against israel. i was only 8. i remember until today, i was brokenhearted, really. people came and said, congratulations your father now is in heaven. it's the only guarantee to go to heaven is to die in the process

of killing non-muslims and he was killing jews. what an honor! and with my 8-year-old mind, i was -- i told myself, i don't want my dad in heaven, i want him down here with us and i was looked at with such disrespect, like, aren't you a muslim? aren't you a good muslim? so i learned to keep it to myself. i should never criticize jihad. that was the message. and that's why i remember it until today. so islam seeks to control people by not allowing them to leave islam, through a death penalty. the difference is huge between the judeo christian culture which produces a stable society, because there's harmony and trust between people because everybody's responsible for themselves. islam is -- everybody's responsible for everybody else except themselves.

and it produces a society that lives in constant chaos because everybody thinks they're the boss of everybody else. a girl has a boyfriend, her father goes to kill her. you know why her father goes to -- her brother, because he can't show his face to the society anymore. they will shame him to death. society's very cruel on men, too, it's not just women, in islamic society. so they force the father to kill -- have you ever seen the movie the stoning of -- do you remember who through the first stone? the brother.

n the rest ofnd the the village. they forced the men to deny them. kill their women in order to save face and live with some little pride. islamic culture is cruel on men as much as it is cruel on women. just in a different way. islam, wherever it goes, seeks government control. they are already in our government. christianity and judaism -- judaism doesn't even want to spread itself outside of the jewish people. christianity tries to spread itself through reaching the hearts and minds of people. by knocking at their door and showing them the bible. islam doesn't want to waste that time.

islam forces itself through government on the people. that is why they seek government right away, wherever they go. i want to give you an example of the history of islam. am i too long? a few more minutes. i want to tell you a story. if you look at the history of islam in the last 1400 years, you will see islam conquering countries through controlling the government and forcing itself on the people by making it illegal to leave. being a muslim is not a personal relationship with god. being a muslim is a contract with the state. when i was born, my birth certificate was stamped muslim.

my student id muslim. my passport muslim. because if i am caught in the country in a church, i could be killed. you're being a muslim is not a relationship with god. in saudi arabia, if you are an owner and it is time to pray and you don't go to pray, the police can arrest you. so you're being a muslim is really a contract with the state that you cannot violate. this is a very different concept and that is how islam expanded. when it went to india, eventually, muslims were the minority and they finally said we want to have our own country. we want to practice sharia law

and the rest of the hindu said we don't want you to practice sharia law. they took an area of india called pakistan. did they end there? no. pakistan hates india and they are terrorizing india all the time. it is never-ending. some muslims during the turkish empire go to eastern europe and they are majority muslim. why is there a war between the serbs and kosovo? is the same thing whether it is india and egypt, kosovo -- chechnya during the ottoman empire, also some muslims lived in certain areas of russia and became strong enough.

they want a separatist movement from russia today. they are constantly bombing schools. killing 200 babies. they go to theaters and blowup theaters. they blowup something every now and then in russia. the chechnyans. ladies and gentlemen, i am predicting we will have a chechnya in france. we will have a chechnya in the united kingdom and if we don't do something today, we can have a chechnya in america. are we going to allow our grandchildren to fight the war we should fight today? are we going to let them fight from door to door in school to school and restaurant to restaurant, our grandchildren and maybe our children?

after we are all gone? this is my question. we are not even doing muslims of favor with appeasement. muslims are human beings. they want to live happy. most of them. but we are telling them their religion is ok. they terrorize us and it's ok, we are racist and we're sorry. what is this? we have to say it like it is. you terrorize me, i terrorize you. but we are not doing that. and let me tell you, arabs respect power. we are showing them weakness and we are not even doing islam or muslims a favor. and we are allowing the muslim brotherhood to penetrate us. there is a law that president

obama recently made it easier for asylum-seekers from the middle east to come here even if they have a little bit of a linked to terror groups. did you hear about that law? they did it unilaterally and i think this is designed, on purpose, other muslim brotherhood escaping egypt today because they are illegal now. what are we doing? we are absorbing the terrorists and the muslim brotherhood in america. look at the middle east. this is just a joke, but i am telling you that sometimes what we are doing is really -- for someone like me that lived in islamic terror, it scared the hell out of me especially when i

saw president obama in the rose garden. with the father of that man. he went awol and brings the wife. do you know what that word means? it means i am a muslim. it is the first word in the islamic higher. -- any islamic prayer. these are the first words, five times a day, muslims say this at the beginning of their prayer before they curse. i cannot imagine bush.

only obama can be a fool like that. but he's not a fool. i think he is doing it on purpose and i think he is rubbing their noses of american people in that islamic rug. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will start your questions. you have some already. >> are you able to hear me ok? >> yes. >> questions will come from over here.

we will hand out cards to people and people will write their questions down and we will bring them over here. i do have a couple questions to start us off. if islam gave up hating all non-muslims, what would the essence of islam be? >> where are you? what is the question? >> if islam gave up hating all non-muslims, what would the essence of islam be? >> it would be an empty shell because 64% of the koran is cursing non-muslims. 64% of the koran is consumed with other religions. they are obsessed with the outside world and if you remove that from the religion, you're left with prayer five times a day and ramadan. and just a few rituals which will make islam, no matter what,

become christian. >> how do we win against islam? >> standing up to our morals and values, by knowing we are strong. and by taking pride in our culture again. taking pride in the truth. standing up for the truth. ending appeasement and political correctness. i am not saying to be blunt and rude, but standing up for our principles. >> the islamic community expresses outrage and is quick to mobilize and demonstrate when they feel their religion or culture has been disrespected. where is the outrage when acts of terrorism are performed by islamic extremists?

>> that is a very good question. where are the moderate muslims to object to the kidnapping of 300 girls? i do not see them in the street. all we saw was some muslim women in london saying this was good. and where are the moderate muslims? there is a little statement on the internet. we condemn the kidnapping of 300 girls. that's all we do. but you don't see them demonstrate and burn and kill. like when there was a cartoon. remember when the cartoon happened about mohammed in europe? they were demonstrating all over the middle east. burning and killing. if they are really moderate, which i hope they are, how come they are not -- i don't want them to burn and kill, but why don't they say, release those

300 girls? i can only see jews and christians who care. i don't see muslims. moderate muslims are not speaking. >> we're getting a lot of questions from the audience. is there any viable movement in any middle eastern country with a realistic chance of creating a non-theocratic democracy? >> there are movements but they are such a minority that they get swallowed by islamists eventually. in egypt in 2011, it was started by students. but the students were in the thousands. egypt is 80 million. the minute it happened and succeeded, they got the vote. the same thing in gaza.

they vote in hamas because of the majority of people, that is all they know. all they know is islam. you're living in a system that forbids anybody from even looking at the bible. if you go to saudi arabia, you get -- we will confiscate it. we are living as muslims in the muslim world unable to know if there is any god other than allah. when they go to vote, they say, i will vote for the religion of allah. islam thrives with ignorance. >> [indiscernible] >> they don't treat it. when i was a muslim, i never

really cared to read the koran. i defended them like they were victims. but now i look back. my god, it is not the truth. arabs don't want peace. they don't want peace and that is the truth. the reason is because they don't read it. they don't treat the hate speech in the koran. >> a couple questions may be complementary and one may answer the other. how do you balance religious freedom against the desire to take over the world? given your description of what islam is and does, how can it be considered a religion? >> that is a very good question. i think we should define what a

religion should be. and i will tell you what my definition will be. a religion will be given respect in america to be practiced only if it respects basic human rights. [applause] we have to define religion. if we define religion as a set of values and morals, if a religion condemns those that leave it to death, its right to be practiced in america will be null and void. can get rid of that. and we can judge islam by the way muslims practice in america. how it to judge islam by

is being practiced in iran and saudi arabia. because wherever it is a majority, it is different. when they are in the minority, even in the koran -- lie and slander and act like you like peace. a religionling with that teaches that lying is a virtue. >> islamists are notoriously hostile for people that renounce their ideology. you must be a real foreign their side. have you personally experienced violence or threats? i have been told i will die if i go to egypt. the only country i can visit in the middle east is israel. this is the only country i can visit and stay alive.

>> what should we do in syria? sense?king any side make >> they have huge armies. if they want to save the syrian people, let them do it. they are both bad. [applause] shiites and sunnis are both terrorists. they both want to kill us. >> can you comment on recent events where a jewish-based university reversed an invitation to give an address at

commencement? >> i will tell you something. people are not standing up and inviting people who are like me. let me tell you something. it is time for us non-jews to stand in the front line. we should not leave the jews to do that job. it is our job. it's the job of christians. . am not speaking out of course, i would have liked them to keep the invitation and not resend it. it's a shame. why then understand jews have done enough fighting for their life. against radical islam.

it is time for the rest of the world to wake up. >> can you name any prominent leaders that understand and give voice to the threat? >> to the threat we are facing. >> i think there are republicans that are caused -- called racists and bigots. unfortunately, we have neutered our politicians. we have a lot of great men and women. we have sarah palin. [applause] we don't have a shortage of good politicians. a lot of people are angry at our politicians. you know who i am angry at? us who don't go and vote. election, the reason mitt

romney did not vote is because a lot of christians were saying we don't want to vote for a mormon. this is ridiculous. person by his character and the man had very good character, very good family. and what did we get? that is what we got. so we are getting what we deserve. >> when shiites and sunnis fight and kill one another, should we do anything besides sit back, make popcorn, and enjoy the spectacle? >> absolutely. way, i am totally against going into iraq and doing nationbuilding. excuse me. we are becoming a poor country. we have a lot of poor in america. we don't nationbuilding other countries. let their muslim brethren build

their nations. they have plenty of money instead of sending it here. let them fix their own country. why does the west give money to islamic terror groups like the muslim brotherhood, al qaeda, thomas, and others? -- hamas and others? >> i think it started when egypt had the peace treaty with israel. it is like an insurance policy. egypt is a poor country and here is somebody going to fight israel. i think that is more or less the reason that we give money to egypt. that is the truth. we don't admit it, but it's the truth. should support israel, absolutely financially. israel has been

abandoned by the world. look at what the united nations is doing to israel. we are helping egypt so they don't attack israel. bank,za and the west don't give them a dime. encourage thema to do the terrorism. support them or leave them to fend for themselves and get a job. they need a job. the palestinian people need jobs, they don't need terror. >> [inaudible] arabia is the most dangerous country in this world. in my opinion, more dangerous than iran.

you know why? because at least around flights -- its own man fights for it. has other nations fight through terror. that scares me more than countries that are upfront. they tell you i am your enemy and i'm going to kill you. saudi arabia says i am your allied. go fly airplanes into buildings. it is the most dangerous nation in the middle east. islam whereme of mohammed came from. >> why do you suppose the muslim slaves don't revolt? the one billion muslim slaves. because when you put somebody , for a very long time, in a prison, if you open the gate, they don't run right away.

like me, when i came to america, i did not get it right away. it took me a long time. ofis also the power oppression of society around you if you live in the muslim world. it is different from being a muslim and you live here. ands easy to dump islam adopt american values. when you're living there, the social pressure on you to go pray and social pressure is very hard. it is changing, however. and i am seeing some hope that islam will go dormant again. liket will not go dormant -- it takes decades for cultures to change. a human being can change quicker than a culture.

startew decades, if we drilling for oil in america, saudi arabia can drink its oil. [applause] and that is why anyone in america who is against drilling, theyst coal and against -- are trying to say the environment is going to suffer if we drill for oil? are you kidding me? look at saudi arabia and qatar, they have the most beautiful beaches of the red sea. they are drilling right and left. now it is like 75. i don't see that the camels are dying in saudi arabia from the drilling. they are flourishing. the red sea and arabian sea are full of fish.

of? theare we afraid liberals are lying to you. agenda is to stop the sterilization of america. havewant us to go back and the world catch up with us. that is their real motivation. they can't be honest. they are like the islamic ideology. they use lying to reach their goals. exactly like islam. i would have more respect for liberals if they tell you their agenda. honestly, let's have an honest debate. they call you names just like islam says that you should go kill yourself. you are a racist and a bigot and an islam of folk.

>> [no audio] [inaudible] ophobe. >> [inaudible] >> it was hard. islam for a long time can demoralize you. it was a burden. booke a chapter in my last called "a muslim's burden." guilt andway your frees you. that is how we become in christianity. in islam, it is culture of shaming and control. it is the culture of putting a burden on an individual. if god came down the same as -- god came down to save us. in islam, we have to save

allah's reputation. it is the duty of the muslim to carry the burden of mohammed and defend him. it is exactly the opposite. as soon as my mind cleared, -- i went a few years to certain churches and and i find judaism and christianity as one in my eyes. i don't know why. christians don't see that. i see it. because christianity could never have happened without judaism. i look at the judaic christian altar as one. -- culture as one. i was watching tv one sunday morning and flipping channels. there were preachers, one after the other.

and they were praying for the whole world. they were praying for peace on earth. that just struck me. , my god, my religion curses. i grew up cursing. the friday prayer, the muslim teacher was it and curse and get the sword out. god destroy the jews and infidels. and people go out of the mosques and kill christians as a result. peace. man so at i became a better person. that is why it was not difficult for me to become christian and support israel. [applause] it lifted my guilt. >> i have one more question for

you and we want to make sure you have time to sign books. challenging one. you say you are not against muslims, but against their ideology. how can you separate the two? you are not holding people accountable for their actions. ideology does not kill people, people kill people. >> i agree in a way, but we human beings are fairly weak. let me tell you, we are all born half good and half bad. depending on our religion, we either strengthen the good or strengthen the bad. muslims are really the victims of islam. they have been brought up in an ideology -- we don't even know that lying and slander against jews is evil. we think it is a virtue. me, if i go and say in the muslim world today, if i

make a speech about forgiveness between jews and arabs, i would be shot dead on the spot in the street. america sermon and about forgiveness between jews and arabs would give me a nobel peace prize, you know? , but one same thing culture looks at it as evil and one culture looks at it as a virtue. that is the problem. muslims are the victim of an eagle ideology. [applause] thank you. [captions >> next, treasury secretary jack lew on u.s. china relations. then a memorial ceremony for journalist's killed in 2013 mile covering a story. journal,on washington

david of the heritage foundation and daniel discuss the issue of climate change in the wake of the first major hurricane of 2014. benjamin jensen talks about the developments in iraq, syria, and the reason. polarization in the u.s. and what it could mean for future elections. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. meant is thel largest amount -- our endowment is the largest for a historical black college. vanderbilt is in our peer group. they are at $6 billion. harvard, which represents the pinnacle of the nation's

endowment, is $34 billion. they have a $6 billion campaign. aspire togoing to have that kind of excellence. those types of facilities, we have to have that type of investment. , and theresponsibility next presidents will have the responsibility, to go out and ensure -- expand. >> the howard university president on the challenges facing the university. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. capitalist timothy draper is spearheading a measure california into 60. he says the result will be better managed states. get the required 800,000 signatures by july 18,

the measure will appear on the state hospital member ballot. fox -- >> good morning. i'm the vice president of the u.s. china business council. on behalf of our member companies, i am pleased to welcome you to this program. the council has been represented american companies doing business with china for four years. the economic ties have become stronger between our nations. are now at the center of the most important bilateral relationship the u.s. will have the century. despite these ties, american companies feasts -- face challenges. -- better of the list market access to reach more of china's spending economy.

government to government ilog is a critical part of addressing those issues. the strategic and economic dialogue established by the obama administration has been an effective administration -- tool. the u.s. china business council as aniates secretary lou example of the value of strategic and economic dialogue, last year's dialogue made an important breakthrough when china agreed to use the u.s. approach to negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty. such a treaty would open up more sectors to american companies and provide equal treatment to them in china's market. the u.s. china business council believes the bilateral investment treaty can provide new momentum to you a u.s. china relations and china's own economic reform effort. we believe they should be a high

priority for both governments and pleased to see them making progress. secretary lew on what his priorities will be for the u.s.china economic discussions. the format will be a moderated conversation followed by a few questions. moderating the event for the economic indicator. at the conclusion, please remain in your seats and we will allow the secretary to leave the event. please join me in welcoming secretary lew. [applause] >> there are quite a few issues on the global landscape at the moment you are dealing with. we will of course start with the issues we are facing.

can you give us a sense of what has changed since the last gathering a year ago? >> let me start by thanking you and the u.s. china business council for hosting this event this morning. it is very important to us as we approach this to have a conversation at home and communicate what it is our objectives are and how we see it. honestly, this is been a year full of a number of events that affect the u.s.china relationship. the bills on the economic side, last year we had an important breakthrough in the agreement that china made to change its approach to the investment treaty. we have also seen rockier things. not a straight line that only goes to progress but we have to keep reminding each other how we can continue to make progress. i think one important thing is not withstanding other issues that, between our countries, it is in both of our interests to maintain the economic

discussions and keep a strong track as the two largest economies enter a responsibility into the global economy in their own economies. so i am optimistic we will be able to make progress again this year. i do not believe you ever finish the job but keep rushing at it. if i look at the issues that have been the major issues we have engaged on over the past year, i have to say it is a mixed report. on the opening of markets and things like the shanghai free-trade zone, we did see an agreement in principle to go from what was considered presumptively close to presumptively open market but except that china proceeded to list anything that had any value to say it would be closed. so it is not just a conceptual move to go to an open market,

you actually have to have the open market. that means in goods and services and american companies can invest. to the exchange rate, a very big issue from our perspective. since 2010 we have made progress working on this issue in inflation-adjusted terms. r&b has appreciated 14% since 2010. it still needs to appreciate more. it is undervalued. that is something that hurts chinese consumers. it hurts the purchasing power. one thing so important in terms of china's economy is to increase consumer demand. it is fundamentally not fair in terms of trading practices, which is why we press on it so hard. i think they have made moves in the right direction but widened the trading band and in recent weeks have raised the target

rate. we seem to take two steps forward and at least part of a step back and need to keep making progress getting to the market determined exchange rate. i think if we can continue to make progress on open markets and have the exchange rate moves , that will be very important to the u.s. economy, u.s. business ability to compete on a level playing field. if you look at china's core economic land, the issues i have just described are central to what they have adopted as their stated program. so that is why i am optimistic we will continue to make regress. >> if you fast-forward 10 days, what are the three or four specific outcomes you expect? >> i am annoyed reluctant a week before to say with outcomes will be. i think we are working on the areas described in the number of others. there are literally 60 issues we are working on. our experience is a lot of

progress is made in the past -- last week, 10 days. i apologize my team that will have to work over the light -- the july 4 weekend in preparation for the meetings. like you mentioned a big rig through last year. what elements do you expect to be included in that discussion this year? >> i think it is not realistic to think there will be a concluded -- that they will become looted -- be concluded and a couple of weeks. it is a very long process. i think on the bit in the shanghai free trade zone what we we have increasingly encouraged our chinese counterparts is you need to focus on focusing markets and demonstrate that. i think that there is any move in that direction it becomes the basis to move forward in the details of the negotiation. i think it has been a slow

process. i think it started out with almost everything being put on the closed list. now as things are taken off the closed list -- with had a list come out yesterday that we have not fully digested but on first glance does not appear to be an area of major interest for u.s. market access. seems to be items that give you a number of things that are open but not a lot of business activity. we have focused on access for u.s. general -- goods and services, and that is something we will continue on. always as we engage on economic issues with china in the background are the intellectual property issues. while there is enormous desire to invest in china, i think there is a concern, both that u.s.

companies and others have that if the international -- intellectual property rules are not followed that the investment becomes a short-term benefit and there is a loss of trade secrets and other things that are extraordinarily high value. what we have not seen is a sustained continual effort that makes it the rules of the road. i think if you summarize what we are describing, what we are looking for is to bring the u.s. china relationship in china's business practice to a place where it meets the standards that we expect when others do business with us. >> there is a push and pull in each relationship. what does the gathering look like? what is the final discussion like?

>> first, the notion it is an economic dialogue is something that was formed by the obama administration. it began as an economic dialogue. by making them both it created two tracks. so we meet alternately with the entire group in separating by track. i think the detail work is mostly done when we go off into meetings with the economic parts and the secretary of state and his team goes off to meetings with foreign policy and defense counterpart. i think both are important and obviously relate to each other. there is also back and forth between formal meetings and informal meetings. one of the important things about the rhythm is people get

to know each other. there is relationships developed between staff. they gives you the ability not just to do business but then have an ongoing working relationship. if you are looking at two countries as large and significant as the u.s. and china, the defining characteristics of the world economy coming out in many ways of our relationship it is very important. it is very important there be the ability to raise differences in a respectful way, to press on areas where you can make progress, and obviously a good thing to have actual deliverables and achieve minimal outcome. i do not think it is just the outcomes that are of value. i think it is the ability to do business through the year. >> market access is a concern of just about everyone in the room.

one of the concerns is equal treatment. have you made enough to rest on this front? what are you looking to do this time? >> the market access issues are many. can you own a piece of chinese economy or foreign economy there is a threshold level. there is a question of how you do business. then there is getting through the many approvals in the chinese process. i cannot say it is a one-way issue. we have certain your craddick issues that i spend some time explaining they are not aimed at china. they say little bit about to us. in reality, in reality, and an economy that has so many state owned enterprises and government to rules designed to close the economy that we are not in equivalent positions. our system is basically opened and their system started out

basically closed. getting into the position where the u.s. and other foreign companies can do business, get the approvals they need, that is essential to what the economy is about. the issues get rather technical rather quickly. the principle is really a fundamental one. >> the other issue is cyber security. there have been a number of issues regarding the chinese government and chinese officials. >> i think it is important that a cyber discussion has developed as part of the discussion. we certainly hope that continuous. i think the issues of cyber security are extraordinarily important. there is a fundamental difference that we do not view

it as an acceptable practice for governmental entities to participate in the process of securing trade secrets for the economic benefit of firms in their country. we have made that clear in a general way and rather specific way, and i do not think there is any question about the source of some difference between us. we need to engage on that and continue to engage on that and i believe there will be ongoing discussions. i think it will be importantly separate the issues out, that you not tie everything together. that is one of the advantages. you have a session where you will talk about issues like climate issues. an externaly important issue were a world meets the copenhagen standard of it will be critical for china to make progress. for china to have errors where

parents are willing to let the children breathe, china will have to make progress. we have a serious discussion. an economic issue like access and level playing field. issues like climate change. then a set of strategic issues. cyber cuts across because of the core it is both security issue, strategic issue but if it becomes a means of acquiring intellectual property or trade secret, it becomes an economic issue. >> what is the consequence if there is not further progress on this in the near term? >> we have made their how unacceptable we believe it is for those practices to go on. it is just a difference between how we do business. we just do not engage in activity like that and cannot condone it.

>> is there anything specific you can do if you do not find engagement on all of this? >> i will not comment on all of the remedies because they are not all in my hand. the government has taken action recently that shows we take this very seriously. >> how quickly do you think china should be moving to rein in credit in dealing with the issue right now? >> fundamentally what china needs to do is have market determined interest rates, market determined allocation of capital and some of the pressures of the economy comes from an artificial way that resources have been allocated. i think there has been a lot of attention on the real estate pressure and the concerns about excess supply and possibility of a bubble. i think that china understands

they have to manage this internally. they have a lot of tools to do that. i do not think it is something that looks like any kind of a global threat to financial stability. we are not looking at other financial systems. it is clearly something china has to focus on. i do believe china has the capacity to manage. >> we were talking earlier about currency issues. a few years ago it seemed like it was at the top of the agenda when you are engaging with the chinese. certainly one of the issues you discuss but not as high up. how is that concern change? >> how are you presenting that in the context? >> i presented a threshold issue it is fundamental to the trust.

not just a political issue. obviously a lot of political attention on the exchange rate, but the concern the exchange rate is being used in a way that has an adverse impact on american businesses and american workers is something we have to raise whenever we engage. i understand a market determined exchange rate goes up and down. it is not unique directional and response to market forces, but when you see evidence of intervention and the evidence is pretty clear when you see foreign reserves climbing even when trade balances are going down, it means there is intervention. the first thing you can do is have transparent policies where you indicate what interventions are, how you are doing it and why you're doing it and the imf has protocol for that.

we strongly encourage the chinese to do that. i think if there are concerns as they had earlier this year that the one-way movement was creating a magnet for the carry trade and was creating risk, that is not a legitimate concern. i said so publicly at the time. for a month at half we saw the exchange rate drop and evidence of intervention during that time. that has to change. the past few weeks it has been changing. we have seen the target rate raised and have seen further appreciation. i think if we look beyond the day-to-day week we two-week movements of the exchange rate, there needs to be a confidence it is not being used this way. i think transparency would be a very important first step. >> there are dozens of issues that, in the gathering you will have next week.

where have you seen the most improvement from china over the past few years in the engagement and where have you seen the least? >> i think we go through the issues over and over again and you have to sometimes look to see where the progress is. i think the first stage of the discussion is accepting there is a challenge that needs to be addressed. i think if you look at the questions of market access, look at the question of having a market determined interest rates and allocation of capital, the question of having a market determined exchange rate, when i look at the third quantum, i see all of the concerns reflected in this. there has been a great deal of progress at a conceptual level to accept we have a common goal with us to move in the right direction. what i accept is the pace of the

change. i am very understanding of the fact that it changes hard and large structural changes. but when i look at the challenges here it certainly seems to me that time is of the essence. you asked me about the housing situation. i think for the next few years i can be pretty comfortable that china has the resources to manage things like that, but if they look five years down the road and 10 years down the road them if they do not get to a place where the reforms discussed now are being implemented in a serious way it becomes much more challenging to be as confident they will have the tools to deal with it. obviously that is important to china's economy. why do i care? it is important to the u.s. economy, the global economy. i think we have made a lot of progress conceptually and now

need to have the follow-through, understanding how hard that is. it is potentially disruptive. when you look at the current rate of growth in china, there has been discussion about how fast will china grow? i continue to think they have the ability to maintain the short-term growth rate at a level that meets the needs they have in terms of job creation and the broader economy. if it becomes a reason to delay the implementation of reforms, i think it hurts the medium and long-term prospects in a serious way. that is how we have engaged with them. i think the advantage of the issues i am raising is i do not believe i am raising issues that they themselves have not raised as concerns about the economy. i believe the analysis we are bringing in terms of the broader economics in the market.

>> there are number of concerns about the global landscape. over the past 24 hours, the situation about russia and ukraine has deteriorated. has the threshold been reached for further sanctions, and what would they look like? >> we have made clear the goal is to russia to change its actions to stop supporting separatists and to help reach a diplomatic resolution. obviously every day there are developments. some going in the right direction, some going in the wrong direction. we have never said a specific line for what the target is. we have made it clear we are very prepared to take the next steps should we need to on sanctions. i believe europeans have made that clear as well. i do not think the goal here is to tighten sanctions. the goal is for russia to change its action.

we will continue to try to achieve that, and at the moment comes when we need to take additional steps, we are prepared to do so. we have done all the work you need to to be ready. the goal is to have the outcome of a negotiated resolution in ukraine where the ukrainian people control their destiny. >> are you at all concerned they have met and deferred on the discussions? >> i think the europeans have made clear they share our view that what russia has been doing is unacceptable and if they need to take additional action they will and have made clear they are ready to reconvene whenever they need to to take additional decisions. so i think it is a very fluid situation. there are discussions that go on each date. there has been no secret about what the goal here is. the goal is not to be in conflict but to get a resolution where russia steps back.

i think that is what our goal is. that is what the european goal is and if we need to take additional steps, we will. but me at, because i think russia is aware the next that's could very much undermine the economic conditions in russia. they're barely and positive territory now. the combination of political instability and economic impact based on sanctions has taken a very modest growth rate and brought it close to zero. additional sanctions could easily put russia into a recession. that is not an easy decision for government to make. our expectation is that russia will like to avoid that. our hope and goal is that there would be a negotiated settlement but there should be no question about our resolve. if we need to take additional steps, we will. >> the iraq situation seems to be deteriorating in the past few weeks.

how much of a concern are higher oil prices? what effect are they having right now? >> we have not yet seen significant supply disruptions. obviously there is fluctuation in oil prices based on many factors, including the situation but not exclusively the situation in iraq. we obviously keep a close eye on it. we have conversations with other oil producers on a regular basis , and i believe world energy markets will be able to deal with the situation as it goes forward. i do not think in the interest of any of the parties of iraq for there to be a severe disruption in supply, but there is sufficient capacity in the world right now to deal with whatever we need to deal with. >> are you expecting anything from china on either of these

fronts? >> i am sure the conversation will get there. we discuss the issues when i was there a few weeks ago tom and i am sure we will continue to. i think it is notable that china has tried to not get involved directly in the ukraine-russia situation and have made clear that crossing the boundary in challenging the sovereignty of a country is not something they can embrace. and i think they are very aware of our sanctions regime as we go forward. >> let's take questions first from the front of the room and then go back. you can bring a microphone right up here. please identify yourself.

>> i think the cameramen do not want me to stand up. the question is, do you agree with widespread concern that the relationship is drifting toward rivalry? there has been the spirit lost in the past few months having too much negative talk and not enough good things being talked about? is there going to be a cyber >> i think if you look at the u.s.-china relationship it covers a broad range of issues and one where in the spirit of sunny lands we have to be able to engage each other frankly and directly on issues that are challenging and work through those we make progress on issues where we see the common interest aligning more easily. i think one of the things about this that is very valuable is it is a forum where we can do both.

we can raise the issues that will be quite challenging, and we can also make progress on other issues where we can demonstrate that strength of relationship in areas like economic matters. i think it is very important for the united states and china to maintain the open discussions that we have, and obviously we are not shy about raising our differences and they are not shy about raising their differences, and i think it is a very useful engagement. we are not going to avoid talking about difficult subjects on either side i don't believe. >> next question right over here. thanks. secretary lew, i wanted to ask a question about an issue that is very right for harvesting market

access issue, the completion of the technology agreement. the good news is just about everyone is ready to close that thing up and get it across the finish line. the bad news is the chinese have insufficient ambition. just wondering if this will come up next week. it has been kind of a tough time for us because china has been dragging its feet even though it would likely be one of the biggest beneficiaries. john newcomb from iti. thank you. >> it is an important issue, an issue i raised in china a few weeks ago and subsequently there have been negotiations going on between our trade representatives and their ministries with responsibility, particularly administrative -- the ministry of commerce. i think it is an area where more work will go on even in the next week, and an important issue to resolve. i must say at the most senior level i saw an interest in making progress on it and one of

the reasons i continue to raise it with my counterparts on a regular basis and will be on the agenda when we meet in beijing. >> next question. >> going to the back here. >> peter cook with bloomberg television. i want to get back to the cyber issue and how the controversy is affecting, if it is affecting the conversations going forward. at any point has there been any effort of the united dates or china to consider putting the talks on hold because of the cyber hacking issue and indictments that played out? and if you don't see progress, could the talks be in jeopardy? >> i see no signs of any interest other than having a successful sned. i think it is important that is in the mutual interests and the

reason we are getting together next week in china. obviously our concern on the cyber issue is very deep. we have raised it in a general level. the prosecution has raised it at a very specific level. it is an issue we will going to have to continue to deal with. but i think the engagement, all of the work has been going on and continues and i think you will see continued engagement. >> one question over here. >> yes. the torilla with " inside u.s. trade." i was wondering, there are a lot of things that have happened in

the past year. you discussed that some issues have gotten worse. u.s. companies have concerns about the anti-monopoly law, and i was wondering if there are any things on the agenda this year that were not on the agenda last year? >> i would have to go back and look at the agendas to answer that. most of the issues did not get resolved in a way where you do not come back and revisit them. they are complicated issues and there is follow through involved even when there is a commitment. i think there is a lot of similarity between the topics we talked about. if we continue to make progress in each area, that is the purpose of the engagement. i do not think you get to an agreement that is tied up in a bow that says we're done with major topics of interest and concern. the measure is, are we making progress in opening up markets. it is a huge market. one does not go from total access to no access. improved act this is a enormous

value to american -- access is enormous value to american businesses. so i think we have to take a nuanced view of what progress means. we certainly see value in making progress in making progress each time we get together. >> back here in the middle. >> secretary lew. with reuters. you mentioned you're frustrated with the slow pace of the economic reform agenda, but at the same time appreciate the scope and in viciousness i -- ambitiousness i believe. , can you describe how this affects the way you approach interactions or the way you planned to approach interactions with the chinese counterpart at at these meetings? how you voice your , do youion and whether express understanding that we

know this would take time? >> what i say in private and what i say in public tends to be very much the same thing. i think you can count on making the point. but it is important to recognize that making progress does not mean taking the entirety of everything and having it instantaneously implemented. there are many moving pieces. many policies to be implemented. it is important progress be made in key areas and that get started quickly. i think they understand that is the concern. there is a bit of a difference -- different sense of time in the way we approach the issues. i have heard from my chinese counterparts that the important thing is the direction you're heading in. if you are going in the right direction, even slowly, you will get to your destination. if you're going to the wrong destination, you never get there. i have expressed from an american concerned having stated

-- that if you don't seem to have been moving toward the destination having stated the goal, starts to become something that is less and less significant, that you have to be moving towards it. i think they have legitimate concerns about managing change in a way that does not cause unnecessary social and political upheaval. but one cannot avoid the change without looking five to years 10 ahead to a very unattractive economic picture. that is the kind of case i make in public and the case i make in private. >> can we get a microphone right down the middle here? >> thank you. >> i am with xinhua news agency of china. about the talks how well does , the u.s. government respond to china's request for the national

security review with the china investment in the u.s., because now the china investment in the u.s. is subjective to the review and condemned in chinese investment? -- can dampen chinese investment? >> the facts are that chinese men in the united states is inwing -- chinese investment the united states is growing much her. the number of items that are approved vastly outnumber the very few items not approved. if you look at the substance, the issues are truly national security issues, and only national security issues that are the basis for objecting to chinese investment in the united states. our philosophy has been the same since the founding of the united states. we welcome foreign direct investment as one of the ways we built the american economy and

how it continues to grow. we welcome chinese and other foreign investment in the united states. there is a legitimate concern that if the transaction creates national security issues, that is the one exception. it is a very small share of transactions that get caught in that. i know it feels bigger than that to our counterparts. the numbers do not support that. >> any questions here or in the back? >> doug palmer with politico. i wanted to ask about an op-ed i read earlier this month. by adam pozen, president of peterson institute for international economics. he suggested the u.s. formally invite china to join the tpp negotiations. i do not think he was meaning immediately but extend the invitation and make some sort of

arrangement to provide server status so that once the initial deal is complete, negotiations on bringing china in could commence, i guess. will there be any announcement like that coming out of the meeting? [laughter] >> if you look at tpp, you have to go back to where we started in 2009. our goal in launching was to raise the quality of trade agreement and have high standards that would make it attractive for as many economies who were willing to live with a -- by the high standards to come in. we did not start with all of the major countries in the region. we started with the few willing to start at the very beginning. now we have a broad base of interest and engagement in the tpp negotiations. you know, i have been very interested to watch as china's view has evolved.

tpp was never meant to be any kind of a divisive step between the united states and china. it was meant to be a new model of trade agreement to raise the bar and have high quality standards. we welcome any country willing to live by the high quality standards to come in because the goal is to have open and free trade. i do think we have to continue and complete the tpp, and that is what we're are doing in the negotiations. i have been interested in to see the view of it in china evolve from what does this mean in terms of a threat, to should we want to participate? i hope china can raise the standards to a level where the conversation could become serious. >> one final question to close us out. this is a relationship marked by incremental progress. companies seem to be

frustrated by the pace of process. what do you discuss when you are meeting with them, and what is your goal for progress in this relationship? >> most companies i meet with recognize the value of incremental progress because they see the enormous size of china and the size of the market. so if we make meaningful strides that open a sector in china to investment or to the u.s. businesses being actively engaged, they will i think take advantage of that and grow the businesses organically. the narrower questions where companies face of approval or disapproval or delays in the chinese system are much more transactional. we have raised questions like that on a regular basis and with some success. and i think companies that have come to us with concerns have

realized we are very much interested in helping at the macro policy level and more specifically, on matters of individual concern. and i think one of the virtues of sned is it just not take race -- place at the via radical -- at a theoretical level. it gets right to the practical details in terms of implementing policies but also raising points of friction to be resolved. >> ok. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> next, a for him on russia -- forum on russia and the worldwide energy supply. and then a memorial for journalists killed in 2013 while

covering stories. and janet yellen speaks at the international monetary fund. on "newsmakers" the canadian ambassador to the u.s. talks about the politics of building keystone pipeline and new proposals that would follow other routes to the canadian oil to markets abroad. he will also discuss climate talks and immigration. 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can keep in touch with current events using any phone, anytime with c-span radio on audionow. programs and listen to a recap on "washington today." you can hear audio of the public affairs programs beginning sundays at noon easter.

202-626-8888. now a discussion on the energy situation in europe following the crisis in ukraine. a panel looks of the changing relationship with western countries and the u.s. strategy for helping ukraine to be more energy independent. here at the wilson center, and i want to welcome everyone on behalf of jane harman, the president, director and ceo of the wilson center, who is out of town at

the moment, but she wishes she could be here because this is going to be a really interesting and important session. it's interesting and important both for what you'll hear today and because this is the inaugural session of what will be an ongoing seminar series looking at energy issues in different regions of the world with. we hope to have the series continue more or less on every other month. and one of the reasons for doing this is because, obviously, energy is a golden word. we are just talking about how unlike, say, imperial russian law, energy will fill a room in washington. and there are real reasons for that, because the issues we're going to talk about very much will affect how we all live our lives. so it's important for us to be adding to the conversation about energy and to do so by building

on the wilson center's strengths, by focusing on regions around the world and bringing in the regional dimension. this series and this book comes from a book which is really the brain child of one of the panelists who's here and has been affiliated with the center for a long time. and he's been the animating force behind a number of center activities and for the book that's on sale outside, "energy and security." and this is the second edition of the book. i think the first edition was about the bestseller from the wilson center press. i tell you about because there was a book on terrorism that runs equal with it. [laughter] but it's, obviously, this is an important topic, and jan has always assembled for panels like this wonderful experts. so we're fortunate to have jan

with us. he was at chevron for 13 years, eight years in the clinton administration. and we're also very honored to be joined by this very distinguished group of very senior people including a nsc director, and it'll be, i'm sure, a wonderful, wonderful panel. so with that, i'm going to turn the chair over to matt no january sky -- row january sky, and in doing so, i want to thank matt and his staff for pulling together this session. as always, the staff has done a wonderful job. matt, it's all yours. >> well, thanks very much, blair. i am not, in fact, carlos pascual. quick who has not yet figured that out -- anybody who has not yet figured that out, you might be in the wrong room. i think part of while -- why we're all here is because of the experts who have written for

this book and who have helped the wilson center really to make a mark on the issue of energy. i'm particularly grateful to jan, to david and to julia to give us this kind of content at a time like this, because i think it's of particular concern that not everything be understood through the lens of the current conflict, the current tragedy, the current fascinating developments in ukraine, but actually understood on its merits on a deeper level, in some cases in a very technical way in order to be able to grasp what may happen in the future including in connection with the crisis in ukraine. so we won't shy away from that by any means, but i think we want to try and take a broader look at the same time. the kennon institute is the wilson center's oldest program. we celebrated our 40th anniversary this year. we have over 400 alumni throughout the russian

federation, more than a hundred all throughout ukraine including, by the way, in crimea. and we're very proud to be the first program here at the wilson center to what will now be this energy series. other programs we expect to follow including china, north america, arctic, latin hurricane, middle east, africa -- latin america, middle east, africa and others. now, when i think about energy in this region, i, frankly, don't think about oil and gas, i don't think about power lines, i don't think about environmental impacts, i think mostly about modernization. pause -- because the psychological key for development and for political success in this entire part of the world is modernization. and energy so central to that issue that i think it's almost become a part of the psychological lexicon of politics and of people throughout the post-soviet

space. russia is certainly no exception. be i think the panel today can address some of these questions, but i'd like to put them out there. is there a change now with the emergence of a new connection between ukraine but also moldova and georgia to the european union? is there a change fundamentally underway in the dynamics of energy development and modernization in the region? are we beginning to see a real cleavage that is going to have real impacts? or are we seeing a temporary blip? will it be just about sanctions until a political deal with reached and then flows will return to normal in every sense? what in the longer term is the positive vision for energy in this region? how can energy be something other than a weapon, an interruption and an inadequacy of the system? and then, of course, are we going to, thanks to the politics which continue to become more and more and more complex rather

than less every day -- i think we're seeing that now as mr. boar schoen coe has just relaunched the military campaign in the east of ukraine -- are we going to have the time necessary to make the right kinds of decisions about energy be issues in this region? i think the panel can shed light on all of those questions, and so my first privilege is to introduce jan who will lead us off. jan is a former counselor to chevron corporation, so he knows something about energy and, of course, editor of the volume "energy and security." jan? >> well, thank you very much, matt, and also blair for the kind introductions. and it's a great pleasure to be here with my friend and co-editor, david goldwin. we spent many long hours working together on the book, and my co-author for the chapter we did on russia and eurasia and my very good friends john buyerly and bill courtney. sort of like old home week

looking at the audience, too, i see a lot of old friends. i'm delighted that you were able to come and join us here. let me just say a few words about the ukraine crisis as a way in the context of how it interacts with energy issues, and then i think david will start from the rubric of the book and tackle it from the other side. in ukraine i guess many feel that the immediate crisis may be on its way to stabilizing, but the long-term issues remain. for one, sovereignty, you know, does russia's annexation of crimea stand? does so-called autonomy mean russian hegemonny at least over eastern ukraine? second, eastern retrenchment which seems to be the russia's, russian path at least for the time being. instead of western engagement which seems to be the chosen path in ukraine subject to what happens from day-to-day.

every day a new development occurs. nationalist forces are on the rise in russia as in other countries, and opportunities for cooperation, i believe, will narrow to those where interests very much coincide. so an expansive view, i think, one has to be pretty skeptical about. and third, and this gets to energy in russia and ukraine. energy is not just a commodity, it's really an economic life preserver and a crucial instrument of influence. and i think it's important to recognize that while we may have a market view of energy from the western perspective, it's very much a power political view from the eastern perspective. americanly, i am skeptical -- personally, i am skeptical that we can expect the situation to do more than stabilize in the near move future, but that is still meaning. violence can diminish, kiev and

moscow can return to their own national and regional agendas. regionally, russian tolerance of kiev/e.u. agreement can help open an opportunity for genuine reform, and ukraine's becoming a bridge rather than an orange wedge, a southern finland, if you will. and perhaps president poroshenko will achieve reforms if the oligarchs stick with him if he can secure interregional support in this country and if the e.u., u.s. and imf put money where our mouth is. otherwise as the chinese say, big noise upstairs, nobody coming down. and that is very much a possibility given the nature of western behavior which has been lots of rhetoric, some sanctions which are, you know, a very specific, targeted area, but not much, in my view, of a larger

strategy. and that is where the role of energy, i think, becomes very important. i'm reminded that the prime minister of the u.k. said recently we have to realize that energy is not a fifth level consideration, it's a first level consideration. and i'm glad that our european friends are coming to that conclusion. we, some of us here in this town have been feeling this for quite a long while, and i'm glad that there's some statement to that effect over there. so what about this role? i'd say it's crucial, but in the past it was crucially negative, and in the future it has to be crucially positive. in the past, corrupt middlemen siphoned off with gas revenues ukraine's gas came at exorb stand prices, and russia pressed ahead with alternative pipelines to completely circumvent ukraine. the question in the future is whether ukraine and we can

reverse these trends. this implies a concerted everett to replace -- effort to replace overpriced russian gas to overhaul ukraine's domestic gas system and to push back against russia's anti-ukraine pipeline policies. pretty tall order, for sure. is statesmanship possible here? theoretically, yes. energy could reinforce ukraine as a bridge rather than a wedge, and i think at least two elements will be needed. first, energy debt rescheduling by russia as part of an imf loan and reform package. and relatedly, pause they can't go -- because they can't go just on their own, replacing the zero sum pipeline game with a plus-plus alternative. for example, ukraine, russia and the e.u. could each invest in one-third of ukraine's trunk pipeline with a golden share held by the state company.

these are really big challenges, and i'm not pretending this is something you do by tomorrow or the today after tomorrow. the day after tomorrow. and in the past, the small leaders -- which i think, basically, they were especially in kiev -- were not up to these challenges. but one is always hopeful, and i am an optimist, and i think that better leadership is possible. and certainly we can't do worse in kiev. and be crises have a way of forcing leaders to make braver decisions. russia will require, i believe, greater cooperation with the west over time. ukraine and should be part of this perhaps inevitable new agenda. so just to conclude, i'd say that numbering is a key to -- energy is a key to the strategy for ukraine and russia and vice versa. and after david speaks to the other half of this framework, i

look forward to hearing from john and bill and julia. it will help us figure out, hopefully, what such a strategy might look like. and i would like to say again how pleased we are to be hosted by kennan which is such a major part of the wilson center's history, and it's a delight to start with this at a timely point given the issues we're facing. thanks. >> david is a former state department special envoy for energy and is the co-editor with jan of "energy and security." please. >> thanks, matt. thanks to the wilson center, to all of you for coming. in this book that jan and i put together with all these terrific authors, the title is "energy and security strategies for a world in transition." and two of the primary themes are that the technological advances in the u.s., the shale oil and gas revolution, has changed the position of the u.s. in the energy space both by its relative abundance, by being a leader in technology and by being less of a demander on the world in terms of energy which gives us more status, i think, to talk to others about change.

and we really make two primary points. we make a few, because it's an 800-page book. we have the opportunity to make the energy world more resilient by propagating this technology overseas, by connecting u.s. oil and gas abundance to the international market, making oil and gas markets more competitive themselves, by using our role in international financial institutions to make other countries more attractive to energy investment so they can be more self-sufficient. and that we can leverage the fact that many producers are now also big consumers; saudi arabia for one. and a lot of consumers have common cause with us and price stability. so we have a little bit more diplomatic capital than we did. that's kind of point one. point two is while we have the ability to make this pivot in our policy and to use energy not as a weapon, but as a force multiplier or a tool or at least as part of our kit to make change and help other countries be more resilient, it's unclear