host: you can join in the conversation with kurt volker. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000 if you want to call in. republicans, (202) 748-8001 and .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can also send us a tweet. if nato is primarily an external facing organization, is donald trump right it is sort of obsolete? guest: i do not think it is obsolete at all because just because the soviet union has gone away does not mean the ofeats to security democracies in europe and the united states have gone away. we still have lots of threats, and nato is a very important vehicle for bringing all of those countries together, coordinating our efforts, and making a stronger in how we respond. of course we would like to see the load balanced out more, but we benefit, the united states

benefits tremendously from having secure democratic market economic space from having countries that are willing to go with us to kosovo, bosnia, afghanistan. when we see a need for u.s. intervention in the world, the only countries that have reliably been willing to do that have been our nato allies. and they bring genuinely military capability. it is still substantial compared to anything else that is available so we derive a lot of benefit. mary from coronado, california on the democratic line, go ahead. caller: i was just listening about nato and the map and we are the biggest country. we are the leaders of the world so is in it, that is why we put more money into it?

others are smaller countries and they might not have as much money as the united states. terms, thebsolute u.s. is always going to be putting in the highest number of dollars but what we are looking at is percentages. if the u.s. is putting in a certain percentage of its gdp, what nato has agreed on is that everyone should put in the same percentage at a minimum, which is 2%. having agreed on it, only five countries actually do but they are trying to equal it out. from fort is jack meade, maryland on the independent line. caller: my question, mr. ambassador, as a former american soldier having been stationed in europe we worked with nato partners quite often. the, i donderstand not want to call it an tag and is him, but the posture against russia seems to have outlived

the original alliance's purpose. the soviet union the longer exists and rather than turn russia into an ally we seem to have alienated them by incorporating new member states that are encroaching on their borders. i do not understand the purpose for nato existing or why russia has not been brought in. guest: it is really fundamental to understanding what is happening. 1990's, starting in 1997, nato created a permanent joint council with russia to try to work together on all sorts of activities like search and rescue, peacekeeping, joint exercises, missile-defense, we did all kinds of things. in 2002 we turned it into something called the nato-russia council with the same goal. nato has consistently wanted to work together with russia.

the problem is russia has not wanted to do that. they prefer to view nato as a threat and have adopted an approach toward the post-cold war settlement in europe. they have invaded georgia. georgia is not a nato member, but they have invaded one of their neighbors. they just did the same thing in ukraine in 2014, invaded, and x crimea still occupied. they have built up their military significantly. the have threatened to use that against nato members. , haveuzzed our aircraft threatened nuclear use against denmark, violated several engraved airspace and -- behaved aggressively toward nato. nato has had to respond. from 1999 to relay the last year, nato has dramatically cut

its defense expenditure. the u.s. has dramatically reduced its military capability in europe. nato is an a strong downward path in terms of military posture. we allowed other countries to join to be part of a secure community but had has nothing to do with nato's posture toward russia. russia has chosen to view this as a hostile approach, but somehow the countries being safe are hostile toward russia, and wants to put pressure on this and reverse this. with the military actions russia has taken in the last few years, or even going back to 2008 in georgia, countries and nato's east are very worried. you are very worried about what russia is up to and you cannot depend on yourself. you depend on nato.

the allegations that russia is behind some of the hacking we have seen, does that say anything to you about the status of u.s.-russia relations? guest: russia has adopted a hostile approach toward the u.s. and nato for some time. , and asas also adopted water mayor putin said, he the soviet loss of union and does not believe the eu should exist. he has used russian means, whether it is business deals, bribery, intelligence services, drop again i, anything he can use to try to influence politics and decision-making inside nato countries. we have seen it in germany, hiring the chancellor of germany to become the head of a north stream gas project.

we have seen other sweet business deals that have benefited politicians. russia provided funding to marine le pen's party in france. they have been creative and aggressive at trying to influence politics, and part of that is the cyber world. we saw them use cyber attacks when they invaded georgia. cyber attacks against estonia after they moved a statue honoring russian soldiers that fought in world war ii. we have had reports constantly of russian and chinese cyber attacks against all sorts of entities and institutions in the u.s. what i am struck by in all the news coverage, it is not that russia did this. we should all expected. what is surprising is we are acting as though, we had no idea this was possible. that thisthoughts

might be something that could happen to other servers as well. of course they would try to do this and they will only release information they find beneficial in terms of creating a result they want to create. host: next is james from south bend, indiana on the republican line. caller: good morning, mr. volker. , stay outhington said of other country's wars and entanglements. how do you feel on that? eisenhower, the u.s. military complex will bankrupt america, 19 trillion in debt. and also the bible, last but not :1, the ultimate cause of all war is greed and corruption. how do you feel about those men and that biblical quote? guest: one can only admire george washington and when we

were creating the united states at that critical moment, i think he had a wise vision for how to protect ourselves. at that time the u.s. was relatively weak, european powers were fairly strong. the u.s. was born in the midst of the hundred years war and it was a very prudent and effective approach to keep the u.s. out of those things to the greatest extent possible. we did not live up to that overtime because we ended up being a much more powerful country with interests all over the place. we have the war with mexico in the 1840's and ended up acquiring a lot of territory in the wars against the indians. we ended up as a colonial power in the philippines, that was a different era. today, i look at the u.s. experiment, the values the u.s. is founded on, these have

produced the greatest benefits for our country that humanity has ever seen, and also benefits for every other country that adopts and shares these countries. we are part of a much larger global community in which countries share these values. to go back to world war ii, just a handful of countries where this was true and now you are talking about over 100. this was quite an accomplishment and it is a shared interest to keep that safe space, not to be aggressive or involve ourselves but makepeople's wars sure we protect i space where our values are ascendant because that provides a greater environment for the united states. you have to remind me of the other parts of the question. host: the biblical verse. guest: i think there is something to that. i am not a biblical scholar but i look at russia is -- i look at what russia is doing.

it is being run by a small group of people who are working for their own power and their own wealth. ist russia is working to do control the fates of neighboring people. russia feels it is its right of say-so over those countries. that is something i think is reprehensible and i think we should not support, and in fact we should support those people in those countries who want to be free, prosperous, and safe. host: john from franklin, tennessee. on the democratic line. caller: how are you today? guest: fine, thank you caller:. think:my question is, i nato should change its -- because it is a worldwide defense organization now. i cannot see why we do not invite pakistan and india and maybe saudi arabia and egypt

into this organization because we have problems all over the world. .t is not just russia and your comment about russia being aggressive, we are just as aggressive. we cyber attack them, it is just not in the news. host: how is nato membership determined? members themselves so nato can only make decisions by consensus. with 28 member states, not in a grow was just invited to join so it will become 29, but it takes all of those states to agree we are going to allow another country to join. nato is not in the business of seeking new members. it has always been other countries outside of nato who of the want to be part club because we want to be safe and part of the collective defense community.

that is why it is going to stay focused on europe and north america as a geographic area because that is what the european members and canada want it to be. .t is very like-minded it is democracy, market economies, countries that have developed economies, a shared thatry together, and creates a character of the organization that keeps it north atlantic. your caller is exactly right, because of nato we do not have the same kinds of security threats and problems facing europe that we used to have and we do have them in other parts of the world. what the united states has done over time as work ad hoc with coalitions of countries when there is a security problem that we feel we have to get involved with. we have made mistakes,

obviously, that when we do that we look for coalitions of countries. it is those that he had suggested. in afghanistan we had to work closely with pakistan. and saudi arabia we had to work restoring sovereignty to kuwait. very closelyjordan on the war against isis right now. in east asia, where allied with japan. we are renewing our basing in the philippines. very actively focused on trying to preserve the freedom of navigation in the wake of china's military claims. we are working with countries outside of nato on other security issues, but i do not think we can create a global organization like that. i do not think any of those states, whether it is the europeans wanting the middle easterners or vice versa, i think it is seen through a regional prism.

victor from windermere, florida on the independent line. after the attacks in france and germany, that should have triggered a nato response. they are saying there is only 15,000 isis fighters. army, if he took about 4000 from each country it should be able to wipe out isis. it should not take this long. a lot of world war ii vets say they would have wiped them out in two weeks. guest: i completely agree with you, i think it was a missed opportunity with the way nato works because -- with the way nato works. because they took place in france, they have to invoke article five and they did not want to do that. they preferred to deal with it

as a national matter domestically and to engage abroad to the extent they are doing that, on a national basis, and not to invoke nato. nato has not taken any steps as a result of the attacks. i think it is a missed opportunity because nato could do more. when it comes to fighting isis in syria and iraq, you raise a much bigger issue think you are right about. they are not that big, they are not 10 feet tall. we have much more capability and we could take them out if we want to. host: how should we do that? guest: the reason we are not doing it is because it would involve significant numbers of ground forces. you cannot just bomb them, you have to take over the territory and establish a governance that becomes stable. that is what we tried to do in iraq. we did not have the patience for

it and it went back to pieces again. i would argue with isis behaving the way it does towards women, towards christians, towards other religious minorities, and with the effect it is having on creating a larger middle east conflict between sunni and shia, i think it is tremendously important we should be organizing an effort with countries in the middle east and perhaps with native support to remove isis and do it decisively. we are not willing to because of what the costs would be. host: michael from salt lake city, utah on the republican line. caller: i would like to ask, when ukraine changed their government forcibly and they ,tarted to lean toward nato everybody felt like they might want to join nato. one of the problems i saw was that the whole southern coastline of ukraine covers the black sea.

, or did have ase base in crimea at the time. that is the only access that russia has to get to the mediterranean through the .osporus strait i think russia panicked and said, we are going to lose -- if they go to nato we are going to lose our access to the black sea possibly. i wanted to get your opinion on it had some if effect on what is going on right now. guest: there are a lot of things and it is a great question. yes, russia has a substantial notary based in crimea which was part of ukraine and i think we consider legally to be part of ukraine even though russia has occupied and annexed it.

what happened in the revolution and the ukraine is this -- there were protests against president yanukovych. ownilled about 70 of his people and the parliament in ukraine impeached him, saying this is a travesty. he fled to the country, went to russia. there was no violence inside ukraine after that and they were forming a transitional government. that is when you had russia support insurgent groups in ukraine who took over crimea, took over eastern ukraine, provided intelligence officers, trainers, equipment, regular military forces to break up ukraine. the narrative that russia tells is this was a revolution from the west. it is just not true. what they link it to, and what the caller did as well, this was linked to nato membership.

nato did not offer membership to ukraine. ukraine was told not now. we understand that is what you would aspire to, you want to be a democracy and a safe country, but you have got to work toward that because you are not there. nato put ukraine on hold. the european union meanwhile was still talking about associating ukraine with the eu and they also said no. i should rephrase that. yanukovych, the president of the ukraine said no, we do not want to associate with the european union and that prompted the eu to say, we are on hold, and that prompted the protests in the ukraine. that is what spurned the whole crisis. i would not say that putin

panicked. i would say he saw an opportunity. host: our last caller is greg from florida calling on the independent line. go ahead. caller: mr. ambassador, it is great hearing your thoughts. my question is based around the financial load of each country. what are the ways we can get nato members who do not meet their financial responsibility to meet that standard? magic if there was a formula for this, i am sure we would have found it. every country is sovereign and independent and makes its own decisions, so we cannot compel them to spend money on something any more than a foreign country could compel us to spend money on something we do not want to spend money on. so we talked to them, browbeat them, complain, put out charts, on.this is what is going but ultimately they make their own sovereign national

decisions. trend hasgly, the changed in the last few years and instead of it being a beinge, after 20 years of an decline it has flattened out and in some places gone back up. what has caused that has not been the u.s. but russia. their behavior has caused countries like latvia, with the to look athe u.k. their spending. host: that is kurt volker, former u.s. ambassador to contin of u.s. policy toward nato and toward russia. our guest is ivan eland, a senior fellow at the independent institute and formally a

director of foreign policy at the cato institute. he worked as an investigator for the house foreign affairs committee. and you so much for being here. guest: thank you for having me. nato we are talking about and u.s. policy toward russia. explain to us first what the mission of nato is and whether that has changed. theoretically, nato is supposed to be a collective defense organization which means an attack on one is an attack on othernd that means countries are supposed to pool their resources to defend themselves. in reality, the u.s. has always been the 800 pound gorilla. that countries of europe gleefully went along with invoking nato, which is the only time it has ever been info, the article five commitment -- , the articleoked

five commitment, it has basically been the u.s. defending everybody else. the u.s. provide 75% of all the defense budget in nato, and the mission was originally to go against the soviet union to provide deterrence of an attack. the soviet union went away and nato had to find a new mission. extorted expanding and say russia is mad -- it started madnding and now russia is saying a hostile alliance has marched closer to its borders. the border with the baltics are right near russia and poland is right near russia, so this alliance kept creeping forward. host: and the huffington post you wrote an opinion piece called, how about an exit from nato and other military alliances? explain that. guest: the u.s. traditionally

avoided alliances because we have a unique security situation. we are away from the world centers of conflict. we have huge moats that defend us. we have weak and friendly neighbors and since 1945, we have had nuclear weapons and the most capable nuclear arsenal and world history. we are intrinsically very secure so the question is why do we want to get in permanent to entangle in wars all over the world. we also have alliances all over the world in east asia. we have an informal alliance with israel and the middle east and saudi arabia, so we have taken this pax americana that started in the 1950's and we dominate the globe. the problem now, we are $19 trillion in debt.

man,00 in debt for every woman, and child. entitlement crisis because baby boomers are retiring and social security is going to run out of money. we have a lot less finances than we used to. we account for about 16% of world gdp that we spend 38% of .he world's defense total our defense total is $600 billion and russia spends 1/10 of that. china, which is the biggest country, spends one third of that. we are the dominant power. it is really a question of, do we need to retract and have a period of renewal because our economy is really what drives all other forms of national power, military, cultural, diplomatic power. we need a strong economy and we are sending this -- we have

almost 800 military bases in 70 countries and it is not needed anymore. host: is it your position the u.s. should no longer be a member of nato in particular, or that we need to rethink all of our defense alliances around the world and maybe plow through the others as well? guest: nato is the jewel in the crown, so to speak. the other point is that nato was created when there was rubble in western europe after world war ii when we were scared of the soviet union, even though they were as devastated as any country. we were scared they were going to invade western europe. france,e countries, britain, germany, the netherlands, they were very devastated. in the 1960's, these countries had all become very wealthy and our allies in east asia had the same problem, they were

devastated. they became wealthy but we still provide a defense. this is an unequal alliance. the u.s. is providing the security. when the ambassador says it is all for one, one for all, we are the 800 pound gorilla and we take these countries along like afghanistan and libya, but it is u.s. power. the reality is they are windowdressing on it. they do provide some capability but only countries like written in france. want to let our viewers know we are taking your calls. you can call in on the democratic line at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001 and independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a tweet. it's here from chris in silver spring, maryland on the republican line.

caller: good morning. tin and theay that pu anti-west movement have evolved from the bosnian coast and intervention from nato. it seems like russia and china are on an imperialist track and they are forming an access. .- axis i think the importance of nato reassessment is crucial at this time. i will hang up and listen. guest: the caller makes a good point in that nato is sort of constraining our policy because really, what we probably should be doing with a rising china is actively courting russia and trying to peel it off as nixon try to peel off china from the soviet union. we need to be probably more friendly to russia. that is hard. i do not agree with putin's

incursion and annexation of crimea and incursion into the ukraine. you have to recall he is probably a product of the expansion of nato. right after the wall fell down and the soviet union fell down, russia was very receptive to the u.s. and we should have expanded nato. if you want to expand nato, include russia. they want to talk shop. i think you would have had a different outcome. host: does russia meet the requirements? guest: those are artificial. turkey is sliding doubt the precipice toward authoritarianism. russia is less authoritarian than saudi arabia and bahrain, and equally authoritarian with the united arab emirates.

i think it is a little bit sanctimonious to say that russia putin is a dictator and nobody is apologizing for that but i think we have to look at the roots of that. or russiaiet union had formed an alliance and taken in latin america, the united states would not like that at all. we have our own sphere of influence and big powers usually do but we do not like to talk about that. russia has been invaded by the mongols, the swedes, the germans twice, they fought with the polls, and they have a bad geographical situation. we have a great geographical situation and are probably the most intrinsically safe nation. russia, it tends to make them more autocratic as they are

constantly threatened. we saw that in germany and world war i and world war ii, they had more authoritarian leaders. britain on the other hand is an island. where did we get all of our democratic values? we have an even better situation than britain does. i think our flexibility has been impaired by a lot of these alliances. i think donald trump is right that nato is obsolete and some of these other alliances are obsolete. there is no reason we cannot defend these countries if some up,at, big threat comes that i think we need to be the second line of defense rather than the first line of defense. i think we probably need to modify nato or get rid of it. host: thomas from cleveland, ohio on the democrat line. caller: i agree with the

comments this gentleman made wholeheartedly. i am a veteran and i think the whole ukraine problem was caused ,y the europeans who wanted they saw the future and they saw reallyto could not be prolonged for too long because of the debt situation in the united states. and another thing i would like to say, as a military veteran during vietnam, this country has never seen more. war.s never seen we have seen two buildings attacked and it was devastating. we have outlined baltic countries that could cause military conflict with the united states with no problem from us. we will be john into nuclear war behind nothing that was a direct

threat to the united states, by some decision by some nationalist made in some country far away from the. guest: i think the caller has a point. the baltics are indefensible without nuclear weapons and some of the countries that are far forward, it is going to be difficult to defend them because russia has local superiority. we have the most powerful military sources in human closer,but russia is and that matters with military power. we have allowed a lot of these countries to come in and a lot of our allies in every theater, they are always wealthier than the opposition. for instance, south korea has 40 times the gdp of the north. the european union has roughly 8% -- eight times the gdp of russia. these countries need to do more to defend themselves. we heard the ambassador say that

arden sharing has been an issue or 20 to 30 years -- burden sharing has been an issue for 20 to 30 years and nothing has been done about it. this is something that is not going to happen because alliances always have a free riding problem. the smaller countries always say, let's let the big country take care of it. ist: the united states facing a threat from terrorism and it is a global threat as well. how should the u.s. seek to combat that risk when outside of an alliance structures such as nato or other partnerships? good, itto is not very has not done much on terrorism. as donald trump pointed out, they are trying to do something and they would say this afghanistan nationbuilding exercise was designed to do that . i think it is just a bog.

in thisreally need country is not necessarily european countries the countries in the middle east and eastern agent -- asia. we can exchange intelligence and do not need to have a formal alliance. even if we need to take military action, you put together a coalition. the iraq war was not nato because hardly anyone would participate with the u.s., only britain and spain. also these alliances can drag you into war. remember in world war i nobody really wanted war but they had these entangling alliances that forced them into war. alliances can be negative and in flexible, especially when things change. it in peds your flexibility. impedes your flexibility. we have never got much from allies as far as opening markets.

they never have given us even trade concessions. canave traded trade so we keep our military bases, which makes no sense, i do not think. i think we need to rethink these things. host: natasha of santora, michigan on the republican line. caller: good morning. i just came back from visiting a and i'mn estonia surprised at how many people in those countries speak russian. that is just an aside. i am a student of russian history. i just finished reading a book on catherine the great and in the back there is a chronological table. in 1774, there was a war between russia and turkey. , and russia gained lands

northwest and became a protector over crimea and the orthodox balkan people. that was in 1774. in 1783, the annexation of crimea began. 1784, the trading of constantinople, turkey accepts russia's annexation and grants the blackaccess to sea, which they need because as you had mentioned, their misfortune of being sort of landlocked. 1791, the turkey yields all the lands to russia and asserts there right over the crimea. the crimea belonged to russia.

s had palaces there. until 1954 when nikita khrushchev became president of the soviet union. tot: we are going to have leave it there so we can get back to our guest and some other callers. do you have any thoughts on her comments? making theink she is point that crimea has been in russia for a long time and was just transferred by chris child's in the -- khrushchev in the 1950's. crimea is an important country to the soviet union. it is an important agricultural, very important for russia. i think basically, we see russia nearg back some of its

abroad in crimea. most of the people that want to be part of russia, eastern ukraine, they speak russia. ike do not condone that i do not invasion but i think the reason he did ukraine is because he fears ukraine will enter nato, and that is along the invasion route traditionally that has been a problem for russia. we always look at these things as offenses but he probably has more excuse for invading crimea then we did for iraq. has recently alleged russia is behind the hacking of democratic national committee e-mails. what does that tell you about russia's relationship with the u.s. and the u.s.' relationship with russia? guest: they have sophisticated cyber authority so i think it was them. whether they are trying to manipulate or do espionage, all

countries do espionage. the u.s. cannot be too sanctimonious because the cia did that for decades and is still doing it. russia argued they did it in ukraine because the ukrainian government flipped from a pro-russian government to an anti-russian government, and that is what triggered the annexation of crimea and meddling around in eastern ukraine, to keep ukraine out of nato because i think the russians were scared ukraine would go into nato. ukraine, as i say, is very important not only strategically and economically that culturally to russia. as far as the election goes, i do not approve of them doing that because i do not think they should try to monkey with our elections, perhaps we should not monkey with other country's elections as well because the u.s. has done that a lot with the cia. the technology has changed but

it is still happening. host: james from richmond, virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to back up just a little bit on the history and remember when -- and i was a great republican and a ronald reagan guy until i found out that he was the one that put bin laden in power and started the drug war. ,nd that we are still fighting and it took obama to get rid of bin laden after we dumped him after he got russia out of afghanistan. i am a full supporter of nato voted forresentative our military to spend more money and if we wanted to get things under control and get our budget under control, why would we ever

give the military more money than it needs? the world has changed. we do not need tanks and all these other things. now we need to go with drones. somebody,ob a-bomb on we do not expect them to retaliate. if my neighbor came and did something in my yard, i would probably do something in his yard. we hate need -- we need to have a strong military. think the caller has a point, we have created some of these threats. i would say carter started aiding the move has you dean and reagan ramped it up -- the mu jadeen and reagan ramped it up. i think donald trump is onto something. i do not agree with all of his policies like banning muslims

from the u.s. because that is counter productive. he said something interesting that no other candidate has said to my knowledge. if we saw the regime change over seas we will see less blow over from terrorism. i think we should probably spend more time making the department of defense into the department of defense instead of the department of offense or department of defending other countries that are rich enough to defend themselves. i think we have lots of terrorist low back because of that. crofton,n from maryland on the republican line. caller: national defense, foreign policy, the economy, all of these things i think donald trump is head and shoulders above hillary. hillary has never accomplished anything. what she has gotten herself involved in, this has all contributed to our weakening

position in the united states at home and abroad. if people have to be nuts you think there is any choice. hillary is a loser. host: ivan eland, is there a danger if nato were to unravel or america were to leave that alliance, that the external threats would then emerge? in other words, they have gone away because of nato's strength and if nato goes away, russia and others might pose a stronger threat. think if that happens i we have rich allies they can pay for their defense. if somebody else is going to do it, if i pay your rent for you you do not have any incentive to pay it so it is the same thing with alliances. if we do the heavy lifting, which we do, and dress it up as being in our own interest what

we are really doing is being the big man on campus. we get influence. what does that get you? it does not get you trade concessions. we are paying for all of this. -- they know know about education and things that they have experience with but nobody really knows whether you should be in an alliance. most people do not have the foggiest clue because they are not effected. the have no experience that the government does these things. i think we need to rethink some of these things and trump is being useful in this campaign and bringing up some of these issues. hillary is making the case that trump is dangerous, that his personality is dangerous. but on the other hand, he could say, she is much more hawkish than i am. usually it is the republican candidate who is more hawkish so he could make the argument, you

are dangerous because you are going to continue these policies. she took a look at what we did in iraq and was an advocate of getting involved in doing the same thing in libya. we overthrew the dictator and got predictably tasked because these countries are drawn on the map. really, we are getting more involved to in and i think the russians are right. he is the only thing between us and isis taking over, or al qaeda taking over in syria. dictator bututal at this point, isis is so terrible. i think it is a regional threat and they failed to recruit people here so they are depending on these loan while for tax. they are -- lone wolf attacks.

stability. least host: next up, jeff on the independent line. caller: i have a question about what effect nato is having on our security. i agree that our economy is our power, and to that extent, we have to rebuild our economy. many people talk about the deficit as being a big effect on our economy. i wondered, does your guests have any comments? mike mullen, the former joint chiefs of staff chairman, said the economy is the most critical thing to our national security. kuester has had some effect on spendfense, but we still $600 billion, 37% of the world's

total right there in one country. we spend massively compared to other countries, and most of that is not for the defense of the u.s. you could argue that some of it is counterproductive if you are getting blowback terrorism on u.s. soil or even against u.s. .mbassies abroad we need to recalibrate and think what we are spending this on. is this really defense spending or is it an informal empire of military bases, alliances, and interventions, of which the u.s. has done more than any other country in the post-world war ii period. we have time for one more caller, and that will be valerie on the line from new jersey. we will end with you. caller: i have a quick question and a brief comment, and i'm only sorry i did not get it in for the other guest because i think he was less political, a

little more neutral. given the overall vast majority of seeming ignorance to these issues, the american caller seems to be calling in with virtually no clue. tanks, aree think any of them pushing to get more of this into the public education and, like, the civic's sphere of our public education? it seems to me we do not have an informed electorate. the government and special interests can pretty much run roughshod. guest: i think that is true. people do not know as much about war and policy and defense as they do about other issues because it just does not of act them. far away. my institution tries to do that. there are other think tanks in washington that try to do it.

many of the think tanks in washington accept the status quo. you hear that we have to keep doing these alliances because we have done them, they become an end in themselves. but alliances are supposed to provide security, and if they are not doing that or they are costing too much, i think it is time to at least relook at them, and i think that is the value of trump's comments. i am certainly not h from -- a , but i think it is a good issue he has raised, and it is at least worth debating what we should do >> coming up sunday morning, co-author of the 2016 almanac of american politics will join us to discuss where the race stands

after the party conventions. and can an institute director at the wilson center join us a talk about the hacking of dnc e-mails by russia? watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning. join the discussion. policy scholars turkey.d the future of thistlantic council hosted discussion. >> good morning. welcome to the atlantic council. centere director of the

for the middle east. , ambassador fric ni, decided we needed real turkish expertise. the days of defined these turkeys orientation in northern and western were gone and likely never to return. the top of a long list of good things he did for the center was the recruitment of aaron stein to build and lead a first-rate turkish practice here within the atlantic council. recent events in turkey have sustained she did his press substantiated his

ience. knows a lot about the wife pg in northern syria. and has collaborated to shed light on complex interactions between the wife pg, american forces, turkey, russia, the syrian opposition, the arab tribes, and the assad regime. moderate all discussion on the broad question of where turkey may be headed in the wake of the failed coup. he will introduce the other panelists.

thank them for joining us. 2 tremendous experts. mindful in this room is i think that the current situation in turkey gives rise to issues and questions that are contentious and controversial. think thatl agree i an important american ally is undergoing profound trauma. we would all agree i think that the failure of the coup attempt is a profoundly good thing. there is much about which to debate and disagree.

here at the atlantic council civility and good manners, especially in the context of differing points of view are highly valued. guests respectur the wishes of their host in this regard. delighted today to have c-span covering this event and for those of you who would like to join the conversation via twitter, feel free to submit @acmideast with #mideastturkey. you.ank think our panelists for coming.

it has been something we've all been watching closely. the number of attendees points to the amount of interest of what is going on inside turkey. we will do this like a question and answer format. i want introduce our panelists, stephen cook. , the cofounder of foreign policy interrupted. we broad question. what took place last friday, and what has been taking place since then up until now? >> i presume that is to me. aaron fornk fred and the invitation. great thing to be here. it has been an extraordinary 10

days in turkey. there is a connection here. for a nice quiet weekend when my phone went off that said i think there is a coup in turkey. i switched to twitter and the wire services and texted back i think you may be correct. we were off and running. what has happened and what is happening. from my own perspective, at that moment i had a number aaron texted, a number of questions about whether this was a coup, and how effective it could be. it's easy in hindsight but it strikes me that there are four reasons why it was not successful. let me run through them.

it is clear the turkish military is divided. we didn't have a lot of insight into that prior. one could have, understanding the way they have sought to establish control over the military, it was plausible there would be a split within the military. 2005, for those of you who are civil military geeks,-- civil military it was a healthy way of establishing stability. there has been8, a different mode of establishing civilian control. subjective control, which has risks with it. they are creating splits and

fishers and loyalties that did not exist before. story, and one that has gone unreported. the second reason of failed, president erdogan has been in power since 2003. he has the place wired. it's not surprised he was tipped off something was underway, and the military was divided on this. it was not a unified thing. it was a larger coup than waste expected -- then we suspected. is turkish military politically weak and has been politically weak for some time. somethingou read in whether it is a paper, a journal article, the powerful or the

all-powerful turkish military, said it aside. that has been a perspective. they have had to intervene in 4 interventions,r they had to be placed in monitoring positions which suggest the political basis of the military support is not what -- it seen and it had its has been difficult to keep politics within a certain acceptable band. , quitet important thing clearly the turkish public did not accept a military intervention. not only were supporters of president erdogan in the streets opposing this but so were a large number of people who are opponents of the justice and development party. the baseline for this, if we

2007, there were large protests then. they did not want to live any religious state and did not want to live under military rule. that reflects a changing turkish society, one that is no willing -- no longer willing to except military rule. i think that is good news. it in more about detail. a widespread crackdown is happening. the turkish government has discovered a narrative that helps advance their political agenda, willing to believe people they have fingered for the coup may or may not be responsible. what we should do is situate the failed coup and the response to it in a broader arc

of turkish politics over the verydecade, which is after hopeful signs of liberalization and indentation to be given eu negotiations. re-authoritarian authorization. ation.authoritarianiz saturday, but for a while. >> thank you. i'm going to dovetail. we coordinated this a little bit. i want to make three points. aspect ton internal this and a legacy aspect of this.

, there are two sides of the coin. not all is lost. starting with the good news. turkey has advanced economically. it went from being this backwater i remember as a child to being the 16th largest economy in the world. the gdp is $800 billion. it has been reduced to four and 5%. -- 4.5%. 40% of the population has moved into the middle class. that is significant. itn you have this progress wasn't matched by the growth of the politics in the society. you have the social movement political -- turkey's political system has not 1967, the 80's,

all of these incidents you have had. you have a weak state institution and a weak rule of law. what you are starting to see is a society that did come out july 15 because they don't want to live under military rule. they want their voices heard. it's important to take a look at why people attempted the coup. the early warning project said it was 2.5%, and i was -- therese people that are very few outlets for expression. people are frustrated there is not a viable opposition in turkey. looking externally, start with the good news. the whole for turkey to want to

be in the eu has led to a lot of progress over the last two decades. if you look at turkey's is in a badt neighborhood. the event that has unfolded over the past two decades, not only in syria but and iraq has had a profound effect on turkey. it is one of the reasons, in addition to what has been happening internally, where turkey stands externally in terms of europe and washington. i doubt want to put all the blame here. --re are policy mistakes missteps that washington has taken. turkey has -- president after

president erdogan has been able to take the lead on a lot of issues. the third point is legacy. i say legacy and not history are these data points. you want to take a look. what's more important is that when you look at the past coups sensekey, you have this that someone is going to come in and fix it. -- there is this great fear that has been created as a result of that. you have great economic prosperity and you have this social mobility but you are not matching it with social advancement. it is a cocktail for chaos.

someone of takeaways, asked will turkey survive? yes. turkey has had harder days in the past. we have been witness to that. i think that are tough days ahead. i don't mean to say that as a talking point. you will have to take a look at what the government is going to do. i agree in terms of the narrative being anti-western. tosident erdogan will have balance power and governance. becausecame to power they could govern. they were technocrats and they delivered. i remember going to turkey in the 1970's and 1980's and it was not the city it was today.

they were a bunch of technocrats that delivered and they garnered 10,002 -- 2002 election. they delivered services. the question is are they going to choose power over governance? while the power does play into what he wants to do there is an element of if you don't continue to deliver the services and things for the turkish public you are going to get a backlash. i can talk about my sentiments in terms of u.s. turkey relations. we are going to see rocky roads ahead. much for thevery brief intro. i want to pick up on something you touched on. outset, almosthe

immediately the turkish government began to point the finger at one person who lives in pennsylvania as being the instigator of the coup. implicationslover because of his status here with united states. i want to begin there. can you take a shot at explaining to the audience who that is and the implications of his status, his role in the coup , and what that could mean for u.s. turkey relations? >> sure. there is a lot being bandied about about who that is. there is secrecy and he is this muslim cleric in pennsylvania. leaves -- he leads a

likeent, it is this sufi movement that is very islamic oriented. with, they were once allies when they first came to power in 2002. they were very much an alliance. they have donegs with his movement, he has charter schools around the country. pro-democracy, pro-peace activism. that doesn't mean i support the organization or the individual. i'm putting that into context. one of the unfortunate things is everything gets painted black and white.

facts are facts. that is the name of the organization. that is what they have. -- that is what they have to claimed -- proclaimed their organization is for. steven: he somehow coordinated or ordered this failed coup. we should be open-minded about who is responsible and how this went about. the turkish government is interested in making this assertion that they are responsible without actually offering evidence. you look at what they have produced thus far. there isn't anything beyond these assertions. there will be an effort on the part of the government to pressure the united states on

extraditing them. they will have to produce evidence. i'm willing to believe that were these peopled involved. but without repeating everything thisa said, there was cooperation and working in the movements.n they cooperated trying to bring the military to heal. in 2013. a falling out what we have seen is a kind of high-stakes political struggle that often goes on political systems, authoritarian political systems. president erdogan has become the sun around which politics in

turkey have evolved for his unbounded ambition, his transformative vision. he cannot tolerate another charismatic influential politically powerful center of power and turkish politics. that is why we are saying the government take the dramatic actions it has taken. whether if they were involved or not. i'm willing to believe they were involved. it is clear the government is opportunity toan finally as they have said pull out the roots of the movement. a lot of people are going to be caught up in this. it's going to be a difficult and violent moment in turkish

politics as a result. also -- i don't know how to say this. when they were allies with the akp, they contributed to crushing out opposition voices. they were involved in trying to remove a lot of the military from government elements, taking over the police force. i don't buy into these rumors about who was responsible. maybe they are part of a coup. they arehink completely innocent. it is an organization that bears culpability for a lot of the chaos going on in turkey. steven: one of the problems is lack of transparency. questionss a host of about what it is their ultimate

goals are. placed activists and followers in bureaucracy and sought to direct state resources to their favorite and preferred activities and operations. that movement has done over time. the lack of transparency has raised a whole host of important questions about what their role is and what their goals are. here, if i could jump in it sounds like conspiracy to an american audience, that these men instructs followers to influence turkish institutions with longer-term goal of remaking the state in the way he sees fit for his own political

objections. you both mentioned there was at the outset a harmonization between the longer-term ambitions of the akp to protect itself from the coup that took place on friday and saturday and the longer-term ambitions to be legitimized and recognized within all aspects of the turkish bureaucracy including the military. i'm curious to see, to flesh out your thoughts more on did the akp's efforts to coup proof the , did they contribute to the attempted coup that took place, and the concentric circle for going around in this round up of people who are art of the movement -- part of the movement.

steven: i will answer the first part of your question quickly. the cases, that , which were these spectacular cases against military officers accused of plotting against the state, created an environment where you splitsrisked fishers and within the turkish armed forces. it came out pretty quickly friday and saturday. i would not have predicted what happened on friday and saturday but i was aware of the fact the way in which the outcome went about trying to subordinate the military did contribute to an

environment where something like friday and saturday could happen. i think your question is what are the purges -- what do the purges mean for the turkish state? we know how many people have been rounded up. about what we are most concerned about. police control the borders with syria. statesy work with united ? we have to raise questions about whether that is possible, not because they may not want to, they don't have the capacity. if you are dismissing tens of thousands of people with a , antry focused in on itself

police force that has been decimated by purges, one has to wonder whether turkey can be an effective partner in the united states and from this government. we are you going to find qualified people to do this? how is it they have a blanket order that academics cannot travel? dismissed -- this will have a profound impact. in ways that will be felt for quite some time. this is the purge after the 1980 coup d'état. let me underline and emphasize elmira was saying.

we should think of turkey as an unstable country right now, at war with the pkk. they have experienced 11 terrorist attacks, six can be traced to the islamic state. have a military in chaos and encourage underway undermining the capacity and effectiveness of the turkish state. that is an unstable country. elmira: i don't really have much to add to that but to underline the point that this comes down to a question of governance. purging those people from public i think there is a question of where are you going tofind qualified people fulfill those positions?

i don't know what the numbers are. i can imagine this has cost billions of dollars in terms of military dismissal. it's a question of there's a grab for power here. what turkey really means is governance right now. of thesethe point various factions. what turkey is suffering from is a legacy of democracy by majority. it has never been about the individual and individual freedoms and rights. until we can get to a place where people can feel they can have whatever believe an expression they want and deal like they have to believe one i'm not ase other, down on turkey because i take a

look at the economics in the startup world. i spend a lot of time with entrepreneurs creating investments. silicon valley-based fund will announce another fund that will go into investing in turkey. looking at that perspective, turkey has evolved since the 1980's but until it can get to a place where institutions and the rule of law is respected you will see trouble ahead. aaron: in the days since these actions, the focus in the west has been on the purges. when you talk to turks i find few are weeping over what is coming against those ways.

they think they are getting what is served of them. -- deserves of them. from some of the main opposition parties and unity since the failed coup about what the akp is carrying out area what are your thoughts carrying out. what are your thoughts? steven: the same thing. i had a spirited e-mail exchange with one of my friends who said i don't really care. -- besmirchbirch his reputation. elmira iss to what talking about. this view of politics and democracy.

turkey has elections. president erdogan got 52% of the vote in 2014. but by no means can we think of turkey as a democracy. say thethink we can turkish society itself has embraced the normal of liberal democracy. those kinds of things, it's the theykind of attitude when were cooperating to do when journalists who were critical of them early on. there is not a sense of a rule of all -- it is getting after whomever is the villain of the moment. suggests this is a society that is going to have a hard time coming together after this trauma.

where does this purge begin and end? we have seen this and other settings. let me point out the narrative i've heard from turkish friends. because we'reied saving democracy. it's hard to make the argument turkey is a democracy. there has been a vast coalition government. let's talk about just this government at this moment. it is a function of a rerun election from november of last fall. president erdogan did not like the outcome of the june elections. he manipulated political institutions of the turkish state to make it impossible for

there to be a coalition .overnment run out the clock they would have rerun elections in november and they gave back -- gained back all of the votes that they lost in june. it is hard for me to conclude under those circumstances given what has happened they are saving anything other than institutionalization of its own power at the expense of democratic ideals and liberal ideals. elmira: picking up on the point reelection,, the the redo election, what we saw was an atmosphere of fear.

created --are creating this fear that turkey does not name. this is a society that had a low level of trust among individuals. this atmosphere of fear, i talked to lots of people and they are all afraid to express their opinions. people came out in the name of democracy on july 15 but the protesters who were beaten back in 2013, a lot of them will not come back out. you have journalists being jailed in silence. you have the firing of these teachers and academics. i would not be surprised if there is a clampdown on i lot of ngos in turkey. there's an atmosphere of fear where people are afraid to

express themselves. you cannot have progress in that environment. this is what actually scares me. toon: i would like to flip something a lot of people are discussing from the outset of when this started to fail. the status of president erdogan. there is talk his position has been strengthened because of the result, and a counter narrative that this is a country that just underwent significant trauma, so while he may have more room to maneuver he is presiding over a system that underwent a failed coup attempt and has wide by and support. i'm interested to hear both of your thoughts. what is the status?

thata: i think ms. bayrasli: i think the both weak and strong. the way that people came out on july 15 and stood up against the military coup, the way that he called out in his supporters, you know, again, he's a popularily elected individual. 50% of turks do support him and his policies. so he's profoundly successful. so i think he has grabbed a lot of power and surgely -- certainly the purges in replacing them with individuals who are supposedly loyal to him, i don't know how you gauge that. it will certainly strengthen him. i think what has happened has weakened turkey and that's what makes him weak. you're a strong man of a weak country. i don't know what that really means. i think there's a tragedy here nd i think the tragedy is that

any 2002 and 2003, when he became prime minister, you know, talked a different talk. he talked about inclusion and minority rights. he talked about representing turks regardless of who they were. he was the first turkish leader to sit down with the kurds. he got turkey closer to european assertion, closer than any other turkish leader before that. i think what the tragedy here is today is that, i feel like he's 20th ken it back to the century. and negated all the gains that e had come into. mr. cook: i have absolutely tremendous admiration for the president. i think his political skills are unrivaled. i have had the opportunity to be

close to him a number of times over the course of my career. he's an extraordinarily charismatic person. his skills, even in non-turkish speaking audiences come through. think about it, he's better than bill clinton. he makes bill clinton look like a jumble of nerves and not charismatic. his ability to kind of hone in and understand what turks feel and believe and hope and want is rather extraordinary. and the kind of personal story that he has been able to advance really helps politically. all that being said, i agree with elmira. he's strong. and he's strong for those reasons that i pointed out. he's won a presidential election with more than 50% of the vote. ut he's also quite weak.

erdogan governs half the country that supports him and intimidates the rest and uses coercive measures against the rest. we see park protests, what's happened over the course of the last three or four years, failed -- post failed coup. if he felt confident that his vision for turkish society was as broadly shared, was commonsense, was imbedded in the minds of turks as something that's natural, he wouldn't necessarily have to use the kinds of measures that he's used. he wouldn't have to be intimidating his opponents. it would not matter. because he would have the country. i remember around the time, i out, turkey and calling you know, 400,000 people to reaffirm how much they love erdogan struck me as an

inherently weak thing. yes, 400,000 people came out. and my turkish friends who were not supporters of erdogan saying, well, they used the istanbul buses to get people there, it was meaningless. there were 400,000 people but the fact that they had to do that suggested to me that all was not well and that there was a sense of vulnerability. there was a need to reaffirm how important then prime minister erdogan is and how important the justice and development party is. that rally was outstanding. i purchased a t-shirt and carpet during it, which have come to great use over the course of the last week. ms. bayrasli: something you just said. i think there is vulnerability within the a.k.p. i think that's right. after -- when it was happening, everybody was focused in on istanbul naturally because that's where a lot of the heart of the protests were. but i flew to the a.k.p., that's

like the mother ship. it's this conservative town and i wanted to see what was happening, what was happening in the middle there. and there, where a.k.p. dominates, they have this beautiful building in downtown, i actually came across a number of a.k.p. supporters who actually expressed their disdain for erdogan. and complaining that erdogan had sold out the country and that he sold it to people in the middle east and that turks don't own anything anymore. and that -- and this one woman said something, you know, reminisce ebt of the ronald reagan -- reminiscent of the ronald reagan, know, am i better off now than i was four years ago, and she said, i'm not better off. and i am worried about my future. when i asked her, would she continue to support erdogan and the a.k.p., she said, i don't have a choice because the opposition doesn't represent my views. so i actually do think that there's a vulnerability within

the a.k.p. i don't think that a lot of these people are big erdogan supporters but i also think because the opposition is so weak, and i think one of the reasons calling out these supporters, again, it's the natural clutch, the legacy of let's go back to nationalism, let's wave around the star and crescent flag and create, you know, create this image where we have to go out and rally behind the flag. mr. stein: you paint a picture of a complicated society. i always joke, a very wise turkey analyst who showed me around when i was even younger, living in istanbul at the time, in order to understand turkey you have to leave istanbul and spend a lot of time out in small villages to understand what gets people out to vote. we've been focusing really narrowly on the coup attempt and erdogan. i want to broaden it out. we touched on it before we turn to the audience before a question and answer to wrap it

up here. there's a lot of natural tendencies, both in the united states and europe, to say, yeah, there was a coup attempt, but how does it affect us? so i want to start actually first with not politics here in d.c., but politics in brussels. where before this there was obviously -- there was a lot going on with the e.u. refugee deal. how do you look at sort of the postcoup attempt with the purges, with all the cynicism that's going on in the different european capitals, about the future of turkish e.u. assertion? is there one and what about the e.u. refugee deal? ms. bayrasli: i think that the e.u.-turkey assessment, i think that's a very distant dream. i think primarily because of what's happened not only on july 15, but i think in recent years, in the way that erdogan has become much more authoritarian. i also think there's, you know, i think there's this aspect where turkey's gotten to a point where it doesn't need the e.u. and you see the problems that the e.u. is having on its own.

turkey's economy has strengthened. so interesting to me, i remember going to turkey as a young child and everybody saying, how can we come to america? now, you know, a lot of my friends here going to turkey to start businesses and to be in turkey because that's really kind of where the promise and the opportunity is. the confidence that turks have gained over the last 20 years, the startups that they've started, the businesses that they've opened, they have -- i think the whole -- the mentality has changed within turkey, where i think turks believe that they can actually succeed. and they actually don't need to be a part of the european union. i think that, you know, in recent days, i think this question of, you know, resurrecting the death penalty and looking very inward i think is very disturbing. i think we just saw last summer

the way that the e.u. reacted with the migration issue. and brexit. where they had these posters of the turks are going to descend upon london. i think that there's a lot of internal consternation, concern, within europe, but i also think turkey's in a different place and i think that's just going to be a dance that they'll do. but i don't think there's going to be any serious movement forward. mr. cook: there isn't any e.u. assertion. it seems clear that whatever the europeans want to do with regard to the postcoup crackdown, if they want to make a statement or take any kind of actions with regard to turkey, it is subject to the implicit turkish threat to send large numbers of refugees in the direction of europe. so it strikes me that the turks have brussels over a barrel on that issue.

especially given the way politics are playing itself out within european capitals. i expect that europe will be outraged by what's happening in turkey, but will remain relatively mute because they fear that erdogan will just let the flood gates of syrian and other refugees come across the borders. something that europe is manifestly unprepared to do. and the violence in european cities and capitals recently an issue it even more for the europeans and european politicians. mr. stein: let me link these two threads. my last question before we turn it over to the audience. this is linking it back to here in d.c., where the number one issue i think was how we perceive of turkey as sort of the hub, the forward basing for the counter-isil as we call it around here, campaign. it picks up on what you said. there's been a lot of uptick in attacks recently. particularly in europe.

and then there's concerns that the fallout will limit or degrade, to use the word, the american capability to continue to carry out strikes against the islamic state in syria and iraq. particularly because the air force base where the strikes are coming out, there was components of the coup plots that are came from that base. obviously that's extremely embarrassing for the counter-isil coalition but also a reflection, i believe, of the fracturing of the turkish military to the point where officers that are being sent to overlook a key airbase where there are american nuclear weapons stored as well rebelled against the state. so i wonder if could you pick up on that thread. what will this do for the counterisil coalition? how shuzz the united states view turkey as a partner? you spoke about it a little bit. could you expand on how this will affect both the border security and the broader mission more broadly? mr. cook: i think there's really two issues when it comes to the united states. the first is this counter-isil campaign, the issue that has

essentially eaten american foreign policy. and the prison through which we view everything. i go back to this question of the capacities of the turks right now. can they continue to control the border? what is the capacity of the military? what is the status of it? the turks surrounded the base, cut off the power in order to go after the commander of the -- the turkish commander of the base, to -- who is implicated in the coup attempt. also it struck many as an implicit reminder to the united states that our operations are actually subject to turkish government approval. that up until last july, the turks restricted american operations there to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. only after a very long year of very difficult negotiations did the turks allow the united states and coalition forces to

use the base as the currently being used. -- as it's currently being used. it raises a question in the minds of americans, american commanders and others, how long they can use -- how long they'll be able to use that asset and how effective the turks will be partners in a variety of other things. then there's the broader issue of u.s.-turkey relations. which is extraordinarily eye-opening, when you think about how the pro-government press has fingered the united states as being directly involved in the coup. directly involved in the coup. individuals in the united states, and not just government officials, people like us implicated in the coup attempt. which is dangerous. which has put people under threat. t the suggestion that, a newspaper, that the united states tried to kill erdogan,

that the united states is in can hoots, is not lost on either people outside of government or inside of government. and speaks to the kind of quality of the relationship, which has always been a difficult one but is likely to be even more difficult going forward. the days of the phone calls between president obama and then prime minister erdogan are long gone. but i think that this underlines the difficulties in the relationship that the government and its affiliated propagandists want to drive home the idea that the united states was directly involved and that they derived political benefit from it, quality, i should say, diplomatically, of the u.s.-turkey relationship. ms. bayrasli: i can add something positive. i think, you know, in terms of u.s.-turkey relations or even

turkey-e.u. relations, i think going back to the economy. the e.u. is turkey's largest trading partner. turkey's not going to risk that because it's a -- because its economy depends on that. there's also -- turkey depends on its economic relationship with the united states too. the not just political. but i know that in terms of startups, three universities in turkey are opening up innovation centers here in the united states. two in silicon valley, one in new york city. i was just in thursday in boston talking about u.s.-turkey innovation and the relations there and the turkish science and entrepreneurship and technology office has announced a lot of funding between these wo -- particularly silicon valley and turkey, and i think that they do want -- they do care about that. i think there is an element of

the turkish government where they want to see that progress develop. mr. stein: thank you very much for this conclusive q&a with the panelists. i want to turn it over to the audience. people probably want to say a lot of things about what happened and respond to things said up here, but questions end in question marks and are usually brief. less than two minutes in how they're stated with that, i will be a sharp moderator in cutting off sort of soliloquys about how you personally feel about the u.s.-turkey relationship or anything more broadly, so with that, please, let's turn it over to the audience. i didn't mean to stifle questions. i won't be that mean. [laughter] anybody?

questioner: hi. thank you very much for everything that you had to say, actually. it was very enlightening. my question is, you know, there's conversations going on about a pathway toward citizenship for syrian ref ziss turkey. could you touch a little bit on that and how it might be affected with the current situation postcoup? and implications for maybe what that would mean for erdogan and the party in general? thank you. mr. cook: the suggestion was raised in the week before the coup and it was greeted unhappily by large numbers of turks. i can't imagine at this moment them going forward on that issue by any stretch. i think, at least for the moment, while the turks are cleaning house and restructuring the government and purging

people, i think those kinds of issues, and other issues related to syria and other things, important foreign policy, cooperative things that turkey's working on with the united states, are unlikely to happen any time soon. mr. stein: i can pick up on there. i think it's something more broad. i agree with steven in that i think the mechanisms of state to bureaucracy, i think are in for some tough times. things will completely start to slow down. not only do you have what's going on, people who arement ised of being implicated in this, losing their jobs or at least being asked to resign or put on forced suspension, for those that remain, there's also a chilly effect in place about how do you operate within a system that's under a lot of pressure and where everybody is sort of under suspicion for were you or were you not in favor of what took place last week.

it builds on the syrian refugee issue. at the time, public opinion polls put it i think at over 85% of turks who said, absolutely not to this. we all believe sort of the power of erdogan to rally his supporters could push it over the goal line, at least in the ways it was being advertised. a small number at high level of education levels for syrians. if we aren't reliant upon erdogan to push it over the goal line, which we are, he has a lot of stuff on his mind at the moment. i think a lot of these issues, up and down the turkish brk, -- bureaucracy, because of the centralized decision making that was already in place, will be pushed. a lot of these things will lose importance as the country begins to deal with the fallout after last saturday. maybe you can introduce yourself as well. i forgot to make that announcement. questioner: hi. my name is martin.

my question is, so, in the past couple of days we've seen, you know, we've read about the purges that you talked about. they're really disheartening. thousands of coup prisoners are being raped, as amnesty international reported. just today i saw that something like 60 children, like 4-year-old children, are being imprisoned or denied access to talk to their parents. etc., etc. so i guess my question is, can the european union, can the e.u. or washington or the united states do something to actually kind of -- i guess, do they have some leverage to make -- to, like, change this thing and how they're going to respond to all of this. ms. bayrasli: they can do something. will they is -- questioner: what can they do? ms. bayrasli: they can talk to turkey about the blatant

violations of human rights. not upholding rule of law. silencing journalists. unjustly jailing people. but there's also a lot of domestic politics involved in this. i think it's a question of whether they will. i have very serious doubts. steven talked about, you know, the migration deal that brussels struck with ankara. and essentially, you know, europe doesn't want the migrants. this gives ankara and erdogan leverage. certainly in an election year, i highly doubt that washington is going to be in a position to start wagging its finger and doing anything to turkey on any of these issues. mr. cook: let me just say there's all kinds of reports coming out of turkey, both in favor of and against this group or that group. we need to handle these things with a lot of care. as i said when it comes to pointing fingers at the coup

plotters, let's produce clear and convincing evidence of who was culpable. in the same way that these reports about rape and children being held, these things need to be verified. i'm not saying that they haven't happened. but these are things that, i think, in this very unsettled environment, very contentious environment, people want to use against each other. so let's step back and make sure that these things are actually happening. all that's a way of saying, though, that if things like this are happening, if human rights violations are happening, people are being jailed unjustly, people are being purged, what is it that the united states can do? first, this administration has for a variety of reasons that are important to them preferred to handle their criticism of the turkish government in a private manner from their perspective this has worked for them in the past. and has set the relationship -- made a better tone for the relationship. one can expect that they will continue to do that. secondly, let's also understand that, to the extent that the

turkish government, the turkish leader, opponents of president erdogan, define the current struggle in turkey in existential terms is very, very little, any outside power, no atter how press contingentous, prestigious office of the united states, can do to amounter their decision. fourth, i think i'm up to four. could be three. maybe it's d. the turks have leverageed over-up. like i said before, it's important to operations against the islamic state. before they gave us permission to use it, in the way weaver now using it -- we're now using it, we were able to drop bombs on isis positions. however, it is an extraordinary asset. and it is subject to their approval the way we use it. and i think that in the broad scheme of things, when we are thinking about what has been termed as a kind of generational struggle against the extremism

and world view that the islamic state represents, it's unlikely that the u.s. government is going to want to take steps, it's going to risk an asset like the airbase. it doesn't mean it doesn't rankle people that the turks have been implying that it is a chip that they can use against the united states. it doesn't diminish the fact that the turks have been largely irresponsible in fingering the united states for this. but that's the current situation and it makes it extraordinarily difficult for the united states to take the kind of action that i think people would like and, quite frankly, based on reports that, to my mind have yet to be erified. questioner: tom olson. can we talk a little bit more about hizmet. i read they have 150 schools in the united states. is that number accurate?

it was in "the new york times." ms. bayrasli: that sounds right. questioner: they also had a cultural event at the d.a.r. a few months ago, which they seem to have every year somewhere and they brought it back to the united states. and they bring all the countries of i think the called the turkey alliance, all these countries from the old soviet union, and they have schools in those countries to this event, which i happened to go to. they brought a number of american congressmen who talked about how erdogan was not a very nice guy and how the u.s. ought to support the other movement. so they're political, they have a lot of schools. my question is, how do they finance all this stuff? ms. bayrasli: that's a good question. a lot of people want to know that. [laughter] mr. cook: in part through these schools.

ms. bayrasli: yeah. they're charter schools. mr. cook: they're not just in the -- just in the united states. they're all over the former soviet union. this is actually the genesis of part of the genesis of the falling out between erdogan. when they -- when the fallout began, erdogan sought to close schools within turkey, which was intended to hit the movement here it hurts in the wallet. the movement has been quite active here in washington, d.c. as are -- as has been the a.k.p. and other turkish groups. i always joke that it's amazing to me that the turks play out their domestic political dramas here in washington, d.c. somehow believing that we have ady sicive impact -- a decisive

impact on what's going on in turky. i think the events of the last week are clear that we don't. let me undermine once again that to the extent that all of these different groups have defined the struggle in the highest stakes, where the united states government, congressmen who may not like erdogan are going to have very little impact on what happens in turkey. ms. bayrasli: i have to say, i think people make a little bit too much about hizmet and the movement. again, going back to this point, i think people in turkey want some social outlet and they want social progress. i think hizmet offers one element of that. but i also think that within turkey, you know, people are just looking for that. they're looking for the opportunity to advance themselves. i think when we break it down into, you know, a.k.p. or any of these prisons, it's not very helpful. because i think turkey's a much

more complex society than that. i think we're giving too much credit to the action. do they play a role in turkish politics? absolutely. but to the extent -- turkey is a country with 80 million people. it has so many different factors in it, i think the fear that we have of the movements is a ittle overblown. questioner: thank you. i'd like to ask, back when erdogan was first running for re-election and playing the muslim heartland card, people, boomers and millennials ins i tan balance who go down the -- in istanbul who go down the street looking as international as you do, were fearful that they would face fear, not for political reasons, but for being secular. that they would be discriminated against.

now that he's president and consolidating his power all over again, is there any similar fear that he's going to play the and further make lives difficult for internationally minded young turks? ms. bayrasli: i think that this is, you know, i think we get in the west, we paint this prism of it's the islamists versus the secularists. i take a little bit of a different view of it. i think it's the underclass versus the elite in turkey. you've heard erdogan a number of occasions talk about how he's a black turk. he's not a white turk from the elite. he's not privileged. he's from a scrappy neighborhood in istanbul. he's a soccer player. he represents the c'mon, man. when he first came to power, it was very much this message of, i'm the anti-establishment. i'm going to speak for those who have never had voices in turkey. and he did. he brought up those individuals

who were always marginalized within turkish society. now there's this question of, you know, is secularism at risk? i have certainly encountered it. there is that. but i am not sure it is religious in nature. i think it is against the camps in you have in turkey -- im for am for or against -- i erdogan or against. mr. cook: the problem in turkey is not islamist secularist but opportunist. the problems or the fears of cosmopolitan, western oriented young turks living in istanbul is aea