tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 6, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
started to speak about the responsibility to protect during the balkans war. and after the balkans war with the, in africa, in many other places, and you know that in some countries the force was used. in mali, for example, one of the last examples. that's why if you see -- and this is not what i am saying, but observers, they are there in donesque, in lieu gansing, and they have clear evidence about disaster, what was happening there. that's why the responsibility to protect, i think that it's reasonable measure to protect the people. the other question is who has to take and how to use the responsibility? who is the -- it has to be one country or organization, or who
has to give, to authorize to use this right? and this is what we have to discuss. the most simple answer would be the u.n. security council. but sometimes u.n. security council is not very active with taking urgent measure. that's why i don't think that you have to speculate that it can continue to -- [inaudible] to other countries. i suppose that in baltic countries there will be no such violation as what is having in donesk and lugansk. >> and which violation are you talking about? >> killing people, innocent people. children. >> but -- >> do you know how many people were killed in those two places? >> well, i've seen figures of 3,000 before. >> yeah.
around 3,000. destroyed houses and destroyed infrastructure. we think that this is humanitarian catastrophe now. >> right. but if you -- i know we're in theoretical territory here, but this principle of russia -- >> i remember, i remember, i remember in kosovo, i was there, how many people were killed there as protect to use military force of nato. you cannot compare what happened in kosovo with what is happening in donesk and lugansk. >> but let's take the violence that happened afterwards, take it out of the equation. does russia at this point believe that it would have a right to somehow intervene? and i'm not quite sure how you define that, but intervene in the baltics to protect the rights of russians who are living in those countries? >> i, today, this morning, i read in newspapers that
pro-russian party gained elections in latvia. this is the best solution. you don't need -- >> political. >> political solution. they gained elections. this is now party number one in latvia. that's why what we are asking, give them to donesk and lugansk the possibility to vote and to decide their future. they want to respect their history, they want to respect their language. you see what is happening in catalonia. let us see what will be in november. what they want in catalonia, they want to separate, to live separately from spain. now you will use missiles, you will use planes, you will use force to stop them? no? you will say let us find political solution. that's why here you need also political solution. >> uh-huh. let's talk about sanctions. i mean, we'll go on to other subjects in ukraine, but i think
sanctions, obviously, are really crucial. and right now the prospects for the russian economy are not very good. i mean, it's projected, what is it, .5% growth, basically flat growth proeducate idea. projected. you have some capital flight, you have lack of investment coming in from the outside. how far is russia willing to take, to take its retaliatory measures which seem aimed at, you know, existing -- you mentioned this in the beginning -- existing by itself? because i have heard that there is dissension among putin's inner circle about how russia should deal with these sanctions. >> well, first of all, speaking about sanctions, sanctions is one of the measure -- according to the u.n. charter, that's why
sanctions theoretically are possible. now, when you -- they can be useful. this is the question. we have large experience of sanctions in different places of the world. for example, the united states used sanctions against cuba for many years. where we are? castro is there. and his political regime also. that's why we have to define why you want to use and for what reason. we have one of the, from my point of view, not if we can say good example, use with case of iran. we have political settlement, how to settle the issue of nuclear issue of iran. we have political, very clear
political package agreed between all main countries with the support of the security council or u.n. security council. and our reason was of the international community to iran if you don't do this, we will need to adopt sanctions. but if you do this, the sanctions will lift. that's why now we are in the positive process and may, if everything goes well, maybe this year we'll close this issue. it's very clear linkage between political settlement and sanction. but when you introduce sanctions without clear political platform, then sanctions -- you may, you have also your different interpretation of the sanction. in the case of russia, the
pretext was if russia play constructive role in the ukrainian settlement, but any professional knows perfectly well there is no easy settlement, and not everything depends from russia. it depends mainly from ukrainians and not from russia and from russians. that's why if you say -- [inaudible] you may, it will be long process, and you will, you may maintain sanctions for many, many years. that's why this is the political side of sanctions. from my point of view, in this case the application of sanctions demonstrate the lack of political dialogue. economically speaking, it's not good for russia, sanctions. this is not dramatic situation,
>> they come to conclusion that it was impossible to use nuclear weapon. that's why they proposed to gorbachev support the elimination of nuclear weapons. and i think that if it was impossible to use nuclear weapon at that period, in that time, i think that today it's also impossible. i think this is a speculation for different reasons here and elsewhere, that nuclear weapons can be used. i don't see any possibility, because nobody want to be killed. if you use nuclear weapon, it's clear that you will receive the answer immediately with all consequences. >> well, then let's turn it toward progress toward nuclear disarmament. i mean, the imf treaty, you know, up for discussion. it would appear that's part of the relationship that's stalled as well. >> i think that one of the main and very important strategic interests of both countries is
to restore the dialogue on nuclear, on reduction of nuclear strategic weapons. because if we really want stability and if we really want to guarantee non-proliferation screams in other -- regimes in the world, in countries, we need to have -- [inaudible] because we don't have dialogue, we have less possibility to ask other countries not to develop their nuclear prompt. project. that's why it's important for both countries, it's important for international stability. >> yeah, i wanted to ask you -- >> and during the soviet period, even during the cold war our negotiations on strategic weapon were one of the strong basis of our relations, defining the long-term interests. and now i don't see any reason why we don't speak about this issue.
>> you were talking about young people in russia, and kind of a disturbing thing, a growing anti-americanism among younger russians, you know, that generation let's say in their 30s, maybe their 20s, whereas the people who are in their 40s or 50s tend to be more positive toward the united states. it sounded like a very disturbing trend. i read about it myself. tell me, you know, there are participants here. what's happening, why do you think there is this growing anger, whatever it is against the united states? >> maybe it would be better to ask somebody younger than myself. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> sometimes i don't understand my children this well. [laughter] but i, i can tell you that in -- and this is true because i
participated in that event -- after september 11th the sympathy toward the united states was very high, never so high as it was after september 11th. it was real solidarity, it was a real sentiment of support of the american people, and i think that it was very impressive and very important. and sometimes i ask myself how in quite short period there may be so many dramatic changes in the attitude. i think that sometimes this is the first point as in many ore situations -- other situations, these are not understanding well the other side. sometimes the impression among young people is that americans want to be superman, to teach everybody. and young generations, you don't like when you teach. you have to explain, not to
teach and not to impose something. they want their model of life, their style of life, their understanding, and the curious situation is that many young people in university, my university also, they are thinking to find the interesting job outside the country. but many of them now not in the united states, but in other places -- in europe or in china or some other places -- because maybe this is wrong perception about the american style of life. that's why also because we don't have enough exchanges, enough context, maybe this is also the problem. >> and one exchange would just ended by russia, unfortunately. >> yes, unfortunately, i agree. unfortunately. >> you mentioned 9/11 which kind of got me thinking about terrorism and isis/isil.
where do you see any type of cooperation with the united states or the west, the world community actually in fighting isis? the terrorist organization? >> we had long discussions with our american partners about our cooperation, and sometimes my colleagues are saying, well, we have to define several points where we have interest in cooperate with you. and there's usual mentioning iran, iraq, afghanistan and one, two more points. and what i was saying and believing that you cannot in foreign policy, you cannot select here i have interest and here i don't have interest. here we can cooperate and here we will not cooperate. if you have high level of
political understanding, you will cooperate where you have mutual interests. today you have not only some american visitors, but also european visitors from great britain saying today the main problem is the islamic republic of iraq and levant. and if we start to cooperate here, we shall easily restore the trust, and you will see how well we will work in other areas. this is not true. this is not true. it's easy to destroy but not to restore the trust. and we know very well. that's why we need to -- the continuation in our cooperation. that's why if you ask me how to start, it's necessary for the, first of all, we have to on the
political level to the side. we need each other. we need cooperation on political level. if you don't have such a decision on political and high political level, you cannot cooperate, and you cannot do anything in other areas. after political we need strategical understanding. where the big areas are the area of disarmament, area of other modern threats and challenges including terrorism, including drugs, including many other. we know, we know all our problems. we have the list. we agreed between us the list of threats. i don't remember. one, two, three, four, we know what problems we we have. we know what threats we have. this is nothing secret, state secret. but the problem is we need to create mechanism of cooperation, working together. this is what we don't have. and to have this, we need political will and political decisions.
nothing to do with elections here or with elections in russia. this is long-term strategical interest, independent of elections. >> you made a very interesting comment just a few minutes ago when we were at lunch where you said that, you know, the impression right now is that things really went south after ukraine. that ukraine is, basically, the reason that everything is falling apart. but you actually said that it was one in a series, that this had been coming for a while. could you explain to the people here what do you mean by that? >> well, as i said to my good friend, the ambassador, i said that our common mistake was thinking that cold war was over and everything, our problems were settled. after the cold war, we never seriously had serious
negotiations about our strategic basis or basis of our strategic cooperation in new era after the cold war in the 21st century. that's why we never created real mechanisms. we created something. it was, for example, commission or presidential commission, some working groups. but it was mechanism, not principles. we never defined our common -- for example, we're saying, yes, because between the united states and china they have, they maintain relations because they have a lot of economic interests. yes, we cannot have such interests for different reasons. our commerce is very small. but we have strategic interests in many other important areas. where you don't have you, the united states, so strong interest with the united states. mainly starting with nuclear balance and the interest of
strategic nuclear issue. the struggle against terrorism, cooperation in the settlement of the important regional conflicts you see what is happening in middle east, in afghanistan, in many other places. we have a lot of areas to work together. that's why -- but unfortunately, i repeat, without creating such a strong basis for our cooperation, we failed in different -- we started to fail in different areas. we failed in caucus, we failed with enlargement to nato, with antimissile defense, and the last point was ukraine. that's why if we understand well that it's necessary to change the direction of our relations, ukraine we have to the study the lessons of ukraine crisis. and to study lessons means we have to sit together and help
ukrainians resolve their problem, their crisis. and not only helping them to resolve, we will start new kind of dialogue, and we shall understand how to work in such critical situation. and the continuation will be in middle east or in other places where -- but if we don't do so, the ukrainian crisis will be all the time the which will -- the problem which will undermine our trust and our cooperation. >> you know, you mentioned china. a couple of seconds on china. i'd like -- and we're going to get to questions very soon. but just a china question. in the context of ukraine, you hear a lot of this, you know, the west is pushing us toward asia, and the answer to western sanctions is china.
that at least is what i'm hearing from a number of russian sources or the russian media. is that, is there a, let's say, a pivot the way the united states talks about, a pivot to asia, a serious one? or is this running to china to try to have an answer to the sanctions with the danger that china might just use russia as a source of raw materials and not really -- its economy is so much bigger than russia's. >> i don't know your sources in moscow. [laughter] >> oh, they're -- >> but if you ask me, i will tell you in 2000 the first, the president putin who was elected, he signed the concept of russian foreign policy. and the concept of russian foreign policy of 2000 we said that we want multilateral foreign policy. we want equal relations with west and with east.
because russia is eurasia state. we need good relations with european union, we need good relations with asian countries. that's why we started to engage with all big ace ya-pacific organization -- asia-pacific organization, and also we're trying to create, to construct our relations with european union. you cannot, the foreign policy -- i'm not businessman, but maybe here you have business people -- it's not easy to change from right to left immediately in business and foreign policy. that's why you cannot change if you sell oil and gas to europe, you cannot change the direction immediately to china or to other asian countries. and i personally think that if somebody thinks so, it's big mistake. because if you don't have strong relations with the west, you
will, it will be more difficult to have strong relations in -- [inaudible] that's why you need good position with west to have strong negotiation position with east. that's why this is very simple, and i'm sure that this is in the interests of russia. >> you know, maybe now is a time we could open it to questions. we have, i guess, about a half hour, a little bit more for questions. and i think we have some microphones, at least i think we do. there they are. yes, sir. i think you're the first one to raise your hand. and if you would, please, identify yourself and, actually, ask a question. >> right. >> be to the point. >> yes. stuart rosenblatt, i work with eir. my questions actually follow up on what you were just leading to which is there's a new phenomenon, you know, i think in the world, the brics development, brazil, russia, india, china, etc. big conference this summer, there's going to be a meeting
next week between the prime ministers of china and russia, 30 trade agreements, big ones i think on energy, rail, etc. two questions on that. one, what do you think about the brics development as a development approach to get the world out of this crisis? and secondly, would you suggest or propose to the government that the united states be invited to join brics and leave the kind of dying imf system? >> you want me to answer now or -- >> yes, yeah. i think now we're going to open up to questions from the audience. >> okay, okay. okay. first of all, i think that the 21st century is the century of multilateral organizations.
and we -- i'm sure that you know the history of brics. we started with russia/china. it was during my period. when we invited india, we wanted as russia to help to the normalization of recommendations between india and china, and we started on the level of ministers of foreign affairs. after that the level was high, we were on level of the president during the general assembly of united nations, and it's clear that when you start the dialogue, you start to speak about different areas. the first area was coordination in international affairs. and after that also we started to speak about possible economic cooperation mainly in the regional far east and siberia.
and then other countries seen the possibility and the capacity of this structure, this idea to join. this is, as you know, the organization of it's not formal organization, is an organization of countries who have common interests in different areas. about the united states, i don't think so because the runs or brics they consider developing countries, and the united states is superdevelopped country. that's why i don't think that this is the good company for them to stay, but i don't know. maybe there will be in some time different opinion. but let us see what they can do, what can i -- i assure you that this is not, as some people say here against somebody, against
west, against the -- [inaudible] this is not true. i think that countries for different reasons, they have common interests. with some countries there will be more possibility. for example, with china because we have a long border, we have common interests, and then with india. with south africa, i don't know. there is some but not so active. that's why there will be enough of the similar level of cooperation. and i think that is good. the other thing i are tell you -- i will tell you my personal opinion why you see more and more ad hoc organizations. maybe because we have very slow reform of u.n. system. all the countries, they wanted to be members of, permanent
members -- not permanent members, members of security council. brazil, india, south africa, all of them. and if they don't see the possibility because the reform is very slow, they create different, other structures to help influence other international affairs or other international problems where they have interests, and they want to have their voice. that's why also it will be, it will go in parallel with more active reforms of u.n. system. >> you know, i have to apologize, i have jump in, and this question may come up, but it leads right into the customs union, russia's customs union. and there is a theory that the customs union is basically reconstituting the soviet union. set us straight. is it? [laughter] >> well, well, i don't know. again, you are speaking about
it's not political organization. what i will try to explain the european union when i -- that's why what we need is establish relations. and then everything will be clear. i repeat, this economic unionization. now you need custom a union. i cannot see why you need common market with european union. it's clear that time is integration. all countries want more markets, more space for the economy. that's why also why russia u.s. on one side kazakhstan, the other side russia. why russia cannot have custom union. this is normal in economic development of modern world.
and to understand this you have to work to populate that structure and then you'll know exactly about which we are speaking. >> so back to questions. [inaudible] >> wait for the microphone, please. and if you identify yourself first. >> i'm jeff, retired epa scientist. what is russia's cooperation with china over solving the north korean situation? >> well, we have same intention to have korean peninsula without nuclear weapons, nuclearization of the korean peninsula. we calculate on a bilateral level -- cooperate. and in the framework of countries working together. it's clear that unfortunately
that our population -- [inaudible] we want to reach and we're working, trying to do what we can. it's not easy. it's not easy to speak with north korean leaders. i had experience with previous two leaders, i never had any contact but it's not easy. it's very important to work with this group it because only working, we speak with one voice. not enough to china separate, russia. we need to be voice of the united states, south korea or japan, all countries interested in these area. and i think that is possible because there some kind of
productive movement, not to block the positive movement as it was before. >> yes. there's a man's right, yes. in the blue shirt. >> thank you for taking the time to talk to us. my name is john pierce. i'm a student at george washington university. you mentioned earlier in the context of the former yugoslav contacts that people were telling you what you were telling people in the west today in regards to ukraine. why do you think what you're saying in 1984 doesn't apply in 2014? >> well, i compared with yugoslavia with only one reason,
trying to get example that the violation cannot be accepted in one case and not accepted in the other case. if we don't have the continuity, we don't have the same rules a game for everybody, there will be violation. now about the agreement of 1994, which was agreed between the countries. it was to give a guarantee of the country of their security. and i think that today nobody wants to undermine the security of ukraine. it was, if remember it was the relation with nuclear weapons.
it means to ukraine having nuclear weapons, maybe this crisis would be more dangerous for europe and for everybody, and ukraine without nuclear weapons. because when you have your responsible politician, nuclear weapons enhance other responsible politician is very dangerous. that's what i think that this is political speculation of some ukrainian politician saying navy will we create again nuclear weapon and then we will be stronger. they need political solution. but my opinion is, i agree we talked about -- i think that russia alone cannot help ukraine. and i will tell you why. because we have so high level of mistrust which we know about, do anything what russia may do will be presented in other countries as something against interest of ukraine.
and russia also doesn't trust west countries, thinking everything weston konishi are doing in ukraine is against russian interest. that's what over the conflict, sitting together as doing with the case of iran are with the case of south korea, nuclear program, you will seek together and we prepare roadmap for ukraine. how to settle political stability, economic issues, constitutional reforms, all of the issues which we need and it will help ukraine to implement such a roadmap. then we can help ukraine. and the second, us to restore some kind of trust. trust. >> there's a question down here, second row. >> thank you.
[inaudible] i am reviewing this book, and in the forward and henry kissinger said that it's a rare opportunity for the two countries, u.s. and russia, to develop the new international order. but when i read this i can add anything happening that way, and so how much do you think that the world is developing the way are you predicting of dr. kissinger predicting? if anything new in the international order? and that some scholars said, the russia-china access, how do you comment on that? thank you. >> well, some people say about russia-china, some people about policies -- american-chinese, i don't know. what i can -- i can assure you, first of all that unfortunately
the international community didn't work it, didn't do its job to create principles of foundations of new world order. that's why we have distorted. second, what we know that the we know -- we know, we feel. we know that there will be no third power world. it has to be, i don't like multi-polar world but i would -- [inaudible] but we never give up what that means, multi-powered world. what powers are we speaking? the conversation between them. this is, the book i wrote before this book, but, unfortunately, we only now understand how the problems we have, demand us without new understanding, in
what world we have to live. we have the question, internationalization including u.n., international law with not only you may blame russia but i can put other countries, all of us, international committee in general participated in his destructive exercises. that's what i think we have now, what is happening in middle east, what is happening for other regions to understand. we need to see that we have distorted and next year maybe it will be good year when we will celebrate 70 years after victory and second world war where we were allied, participating together, and we created u.n. system but maybe now we have to understand. we have the same challenges, same problems, danger for all of
us and we need to unite our forces to create these new world order. how we do it, i don't know. it's clear that we need to respect principles. we need to respect international law. have to great multilateral decision. this is, or multi-match and -- look, it was easy to impose in the middle east. it was possible, the united states and soviet union, they could stop the war, speaking by phone. and decide how to stop. today,. [inaudible] that's why it's necessary to create a totally new system. everybody will participate. we will expect -- respect the order and we will work together. it's not easy, i understand, in
the of the world. i don't, i don't see any other possibility to avoid the more difficult period if we don't stop this work. >> a question from matt happened to be the head of the canon institute. >> you already introduced the, thank you. there's an opinion that often times the reason why we can't get started on this approach to a new system, to a new type of dialogue, to putting our trust in a new set of rules is fear, is deep laden and security. my question is, when it comes to the countries, particularly on russia's periphery, and we know from the latest crisis in ukraine, but others, those are
often the locus of the biggest problem for russia's relations with the west. why do you think that there is so much fear of russia, it is that fear justified? >> union soviet period when some of the same opinion, very high level, i don't know what is your opinion. very high level or not, but maybe. i will tell you, 90s russia was struggling to survive. it was, we never had economic effect to create problem for anybody. but in '90s, nato started
enlargement. it was not fear that speculation about fear. but fear had czech republic, or hungry, or poland. it was the intention that the first of a european union. and other countries, you are coming to these countries. for those, the same issue. all these countries what fear they had. remember though, now they're members of nato, okay. fear, what fear? russia is a stupid motion. good start third world war. mainly they are trying to let us see, i sent about without elections.
i think that they have also reasonable people. they wanted to gain, creating this inflation of russian threat. russian threat, what? i will tell you. in latvia, you know perfectly well, 30% of the population without nationality. i worked with european union. i was speaking with council europe. please, do we think this is acceptable? what is the reason? why they don't have nationality? because they are not from latvia. but this is not their problem. all their life they're living there because they are russians only. and i said, we don't want to impose our conditions. please, impose them only. the rules of council europe,
with the rule of the oecd and nothing else, and then there is no problem. that's why this is what we have to discuss government. there will be no threat. it's easy to say this is the threat of russia. threat, what? we had a lot of territory, i can assure you. why we need more, we don't know what to do with siberia. we've only six or 7 million people and we don't know how to develop that region. we need dialect. we need to sit together and then you will see that everything is possible. >> there's a woman the back -- yes. >> thank you. retired american diplomat. mr. minister, you said that, if i understood you correctly, that without a sort of strategic
framework, an agreement on political principles there's not much point in talking about smaller issues because these don't really relate to dialogue. but apropos that and also your last comments, do you think it's really possible for us to agree on a set of principles? i think there are so many differences in the way we view the world, and what we think is permissible or not permissible to start with nato, whether it's a threat to russia or not. and isn't sometimes better to start with a small issues? i remember in the soviet period we spent a lot of time thinking about what are the small issues we can discuss, if we will never agree on the big ones. >> if i say no, it means we have to say that our generation, if
it were possible and 75, the cold war period, and it was possible for 10 important principles of stability in europe, why we cannot do it now? what is the reason? at that moment, we have to military political blocs preparing a nuclear strike against each other. in cold war we signed helsinki every highest level. with 10 principles. that's what i think that if somebody says today, it's more difficult than it was at that moment, this is only through the work and only incapacity. i am sure it will be possible.
and the other example which i can give you is that after the war in yugoslavia, nato bombed yugoslavia. in two years we agreed between russia and nato council but if you read the paper of the statement, it was verified by all nato countries and by russia. and we agreed in principle also how to cooperate between nato and russia. unfortunately, we failed with that calculation later, but we agreed to principle. that's why it is possible. we may think it is not possible. we agree how to apply, how to implement this. this is everyday job, and not only -- beautiful document. >> question down front. >> thank you.
i'm from afghanistan and i fear that rumsfeld foundation field. my question is, minister, how do you assess the security situation in the region? when they made a combat operation ends up at this year. while we clear say that, taliban are not completely dismantled, we have isis/isil and we recently see horizon coming up. how do you see the region will cooperate with all these security concerns? >> well, the topic of our meeting was russian and u.s. i think that if we publish it,
we will publish it, it will both be important to the stability in the region. because for different reasons it's important for the united states, but not less for russia, particularly. and we cooperated quite well during different periods. it was during the period of taliban and after september 11, and that's why we helped nato and american troops to receive transit of weapons the russian territories because it's in our interest, even without dialect we were helping american troops in afghanistan. this is a demonstration of understanding, the cooperation of how we have to cooperative unfortunately, as a said before you cannot select one point and said here, cooperation is okay here. we cannot cooperate year.
i cannot trust you today and tomorrow. that's why i think the future of afghanistan may depend on how -- [inaudible] china, all regional countries, remember you have a group of eight. working very closely, you a line to work. we owe those countries that have real interest. we have to cooperate. and if we cooperate we can avoid negative consequences. if not, you know what they will be. >> gentlemen here and then one in the back i believe. let's start with this gentleman here in the middle. right there, yes. >> thank you.
i am from belarus. i was delighted to hear your call, respect independence of former soviet countries. at the same time since the end of the cold war, russia has the right for privilege interest in these countries. the former soviet union. can you please specify what exactly does this mean privileged interest? and could it be the reason why ukrainian crisis has started that russia wanted to employ this some kind of veto power over decisions on national development for ukraine trucks thank you. >> -- for ukraine? thank you. >> look, i am a professional diplomat, 14 years in my experience and i know how to read papers and i know how to be papers to give me one statement, i was minister for four years
and that i was three years secretary of security council. give me one statement, my statement speaking about some privileged interest of russia in those countries. if you give me i will answer you. but you cannot give me. you really must -- let us use statements, documents, and then i will answer you. we don't have any privileged interest in these countries. we have to respect -- personally i was presenting humor, the so-called bigger treaty among russians and ukraine, saying that we are equal players of international, an international arena. only equal on the basis of equal rights. we can construct new kind of relations. and i think that belorussia,
we're trying to do such an example. that's why i think that if you ask me in theory, we don't have any privileged interest. we have national interest. this is true. this is different. national interest. national interest because we have common border. it's clear that we have more interest, national interest better than many european countries or even the united states. because we have a common history. we have common economic interest. we have common security interest. we have common humanitarian interest because many families there living there and you. that's why we've national interest. we recognize it, but national interest and privileged interest, this is big difference. as we say -- [inaudible] >> so that's what explains why
russia is worried about nato on the border. you are saying it's not a privileged interest in those countries, that you're worried about your own strategic, you know, defense, interest in that region along the border, is that correct? >> look, we started to speak with the nato, and i was speaking for secretary-general of nato, with -- [inaudible] and but trying to understand what is the policy of nato. what is the policy of nato? if i don't understand your policy, i cannot believe you. i suspect, i mistrust you because if you don't explain what is the reason, i told you
before. this is not political organizations. we were not against the enlightenment for european union. this is economic development. each country decide what system they want to be. but nato is not political organization. it's military organization. this military organization, it means that you want to assure your security. and if you have, told russia, needs security is coming from russia. and political documents, russia now is not, russia is not enemy of nato. were is a logical piece of these decisions? that's why we created russian nato council precisely, because it was clear it was not our
possibly to stop it but we wanted to create, trying to say let us work together. but most russian nato counterparts all countries in national capacity. it was not nato countries and russia but it was enhanced with each country sitting around a table discussing common problems trying to find common solutions. but, unfortunately, we failed. >> we have about eight, nine minutes to go. let's get the gentlemen in the back to his been waiting patiently, then we will move to the front. and did you identify yourself. >> the council of kennedy for democracy. mr. minister, in your remarks you said we should study the lessons of ukraine. the president of ukraine, poroshenko, has studied those problems, and he thinks the
solution is to correct the situation which is politically corrupt. that kind of reform, is it the basis for a partnership twin russia and the united states in advancing it, or to return to the question, do the russians fears set reforms? >> what is russian -- >> i'm not quite sure what either one of us understand the question. reform and ukraine that poroshenko is talking about, reform in ukraine? and the question is, that would be the basis for some type of cooperation? if you want -- >> i, i didn't listen to speech of poroshenko. that's why maybe i don't know the details of his settlement. but you spoke about corruption. ..
judicial system and economic system. i don't think that it's so easy to see only with corruption. first of all you cannot struggle against corruption. they can propose or help the political economic, social including corruption is a big joke for many years. it's quite difficult in a society. >> we have time for two more questions selected a the gentleman standing up and then come down here.
>> on the television station in washington, d.c. with me remind you the statement in 2008. the question is whether a patient and how in the future with control over the agreement in the european union and into the government's declared policies to join nato. >> i agree on georgia into the prime minister in new york in the united nations that and i think that this is the same attitude that is clear we have a
history and we need from both sides to work to restore the normal relations between the two. i think it is possible we have a good history among our people and moving ahead i think that it is possible that it will need time. >> one of the falluja here at the wilson center. >> i'm one of the fellows at the
wilson center this year. i would like to turn to the question about the right to protect and my question specifically is what rush does policy is on the right to protect if it comes true is it as being appropriate to intervene when the cultural rights are being threatened and whether nx is tangible threat would have to be present. >> i think for the fifth time we have come to speak about peace when the military force and population and i don't think that today we can define when you can use this right but it was the real violation of human
rights in the civil population and it was considered important. how it can be used on other occasions i don't think can define exactly. i don't think that you can use -- it seems to be something exceptional when that wright was used. >> on that note which reminds us that life has not been defined in this area. but i really want to thank you very much for a wonderful explanation. it's rare that we get the views from moscow directly into an appreciative.
i'm proud we are going to have background and have background universal checks into the weapon to get 94 shots in just a few minutes. that's what happened at sandy hook school. he also said we don't want in the future the additional weapons of mass distraction to be sold in our state that i believe in all of that. and i believe that we need to invest in in mental-health and that's why we are doing it as well. my opponent, tom foley tells you that it would lower at 32% in 2013. that is making children safer in schools and on the street of bridgeport, hartford and new haven. the wall that we came together on a bipartisan basis to majority leader or the majority leader or excuse me the minority leader of the senate championed the legislation.
tom will repeal it and i will never, ever do that. >> moderator: mr. foley? foley: mr. governor malloy isn't telling the truth. i never said i would repeal the gun law at all. it hasn't made it safer to areas we had a terrible tragedy in newton. and i said at the time to the governor through did the governor through the media not personally, but i said please, let's fix the problem to figure out what the cause of the problem was and let's address that and not do an overreaching government bill which is what he did. the source of the problem is newton was a mental health problem and the governor had an opportunity to address mental-health in connecticut
which i would like to address as governor. i would like to solve that problem. he had the opportunity to take a good direction as a result he and instead, he went off in the direction that was unnecessary. and he took away the rights of people who consider those rights important and you recognize in the debate on tuesday night that those rights exist and are important. so why did you take them with no beneficial effect? we are no safer and this has inconvenienced a lot of people. i want to move on and address things more important like jobs and the economy and getting control of spending in the state. >> thank you. mr. malloy, or rebuttal? >> foley i have a lot of respect for you over the years but tonight you just told everybody in the state something that
isn't true. you have said repeatedly that he would sign the repeal of the gun law. you have said that month after month after month and now that you understand people are catching on to what you were to do to their streets into their urban environment, now you want to fishtail around and flopped back and forth and have it both ways. you can see that debate in its entirety on the website, c-span.org. also also wanted to let us live coverage of several senate debates coming up tomorrow.
>> the government isn't looking to any particular solution but rather subscribe at a higher level the attributes of what they should look like that they have to be secure and privacy enhancing and easy to use and interoperability and let that be a bit of a guidepost to start developing solutions around it. so, just looking at the pilots we have, some are looking at a smartphone applications which will basically be used in lieu of the password for different sites and others are testing the different types of biometrics into finger-pointing voice recognition. again not to say that every one
of these is going to be the solution for everybody but the kind of things we are testing out a >> of the supreme court kicked off the term by turning away the appeals by five states seeking to prohibit marriage. the refusal means that the lower court decision striking down the dams in indiana, wisconsin, utah and virginia and will go into effect paving the way are same-sex marriage in the states as well as others within the circuit and that would make same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the district of columbia. last week one of the former colleagues required justice john paul stevens to speak with university law students about his legal career and the court created justice stevens steps down and is the author of the new book six amendments and how and why we should change the constitution. this event just over an hour.
>> good afternoon. it's a great pleasure to welcome justice stevens to georgetown law school. this is a new tradition that we are starting today. and it grows out of two programs we've had in the past few years. justice spoke to the first class and last year to the graduating class. and so a number of member of the faculty were thinking what would be a good new tradition would be to have a leading member of the bar come in to talk to the new first-year students about their career and to offer advice about legal careers as people start their legal studies. so, i can tell you how delighted i am that justice stevens is
joining us today. a round of applause for justice stevens. [applause] >> maybe i should quit bowing my head. [laughter] thank you all very much. so just a few housekeeping matters. if you have cell phones turned them off. what we are going to do is talk and a number of students submitted questions in advance so i will read those questions in addition to those that i've written and when i read one of
the students questions i will call you by name so if you just stand so we can recognize you and if you have time at the end we will have hand microphones and i've asked for questions. but it's great to see so many of the distinguished alumni and faculty and senior staff and so many great students. what a great way to start the year. actually, let me begin with a few words of introduction. we normally say that our guest needs no words of introduction and that's actually true today that would be say a few things about justice stevens career before we start the questions. as the baseball season starts i think it's worth noting he was present at the 1932 world series game where babe ruth appointed another home run he was about to hit and i believe that he had a
scorecard from the game in your office. he went through with library cards [inaudible] spinnaker justice stevens went to the university of chicago as an undergraduate in the end listed in the navy december 6, 1941 just hours before the japanese attack on pearl harbor and won a bronze star for his service that informed american officials that the commander of the japanese a navy was about to strap it onto the front. after the war he attended the northwestern law school where he
graduated first in his class and he clerked after the supreme court justice and went to private practice in chicago specializing in antitrust law and the 1970s was appointed to the circuit and then in 1975 by president gerald ford and he chose justice stevens as the finest wine i could find. in his more than 30 years on the court, justice stevens commitment to justice and integrity to the independent thought and overlook law had the highest ideas of the judiciary so i can't think of a better person to welcome. actually, i first met justice stevens in 2005. i was at the well schooled as a dean and in the faculty when of justice stevens clerk put
together a symposium on the first 30 years and to my surprise i received a letter from president gerald ford about justice stevens and i would like to start by quoting from that letter because it is extraordinary. that's my favorite part. historians study the significant diplomatic legislative and economic events that occurred occur during presidential terms to evaluate the presidency. normally little or no consideration is given to the long-term effect of the president's court nominees. but that's not the case with my presence. i'm prepared to allow judgment to my term in office if necessary exclusively on my nomination 30 years ago just to
john paul stevens of the united states supreme court. i endorse the views of the character establishment and free exercise and securing procedural safeguards in the criminal law and the constitution regulatory. he served his nation while and all times carrying out his judicial duties with dignity, intellect and without partisan political concerns. justice stevens has made me into workable citizens proud of my three decade position to appoint this up in court and an extraordinary letter. i don't know any other president who has ever made a statement like that without a supreme court justice. >> you can understand if the dean asks me to come to an event like this i'm happy to do so. [laughter] that was a wonderful letter i must say.
a [inaudible] i have to say as i look out at this group i know you're not all freshmen but it reminds me of my first day in law school the shape of the room is similar to this and to those of you who are freshmen you will have a couple of years ahead of you. >> what made you decide to go to law school cliques clicks you thought you might be an english teacher? >> i did. there were two principal causes. one was the g.i. bill of rights
gave me more opportunities than otherwise would have been available, and my brother wrote me a letter five years older than i he wrote me a letter recommending i go to law school and described some of the benefits of being a lawyer and the rewards he received from being able to use his skills and it really made an impression. he described what he enjoyed was his work. he was in practice with another young lawyer in chicago and he never joined a big firm that he did a lot of good things and it influenced me to change my thinking. >> did not convince you to
pursue your career tax >> got together was the available bill. this reminded me at the time northwestern was a smaller school and had a smaller faculty may be eight or ten people on the faculty. they were a funny group and it was a small enough class you get to know the professors well and i think benefited from the small class and member of professors in the energy. >> as the students are beginning to you have any advice for what
they should be doing in law school clinics >> it is corny to say that -- [laughter] it stays off and you can enjoy it if you work at it and it's worth the work and you should study hard. >> thinking about the legal careers do you have any advice for them? >> i said this to more than one group your most important asset is your reputation for integrity and you must always remember you've got to play by the rules. if you don't, people will know about it.
>> shiites are you a faithful person and if so has to face shaped and formed your career tax >> i don't know how exactly to answer it but it's asking about the extent to which it might have affected my work on the court and i think a lot about my mother in the cases. my mother was a christian scientist and her mother before her. i took christian sunday school and so forth so that was my religion that had my own work on the court and i would often think about whether a statute was fair or unfair to the religious minority and they
would think about whether it requires medical procedures into certain things like that but crying to the christian science to not be the same at all and i thought how much my mother would react to such. i would find the general good was more important than the individual's. >> let ask you another question. how important are mentors? sputnik i can't think of anybody that has a mentor. by faculty at northwestern me a
great deal but edwards on chance and at the law firm i worked for the first three years in practice was the person that admired and respected but i haven't thought of him as a mentor so i'm not sure i had any. >> what did you learn from justice rutledge? is >> i learned one example you get a certain number of cases where another person will fire the paper that his handwriting or typewritten or something like that and the procedure when i was the clerk was that those papers went to the chiefs course and the clerk had three chambers into the chiefs with prepared a
memorandum on all its forms and it would be a today's before computers. the chiefs would type up an original with seven or eight copies and then they would send. they sit around the chambers. they looked at it and they would read the memo. i will summarize by saying an illinois prisoner hasn't exhausted and that's about the remedy. justice rutledge insisted that his clerks at the original papers and go through and make it an independent judgment of
what is going on. he told my clerks at the free case is important. you have to find out the pressure. the purpose is job is to be sure that every litigant was heard in hearing before proceeding we had a different responsibility then any of the other justices. another thing i learned was the same idea every case was important and he felt it important to let every lawyer though there were arguments that had been considered and thoughtfully he wrote longer opinions than anybody else on the court and he was careful to try to let the reader know the argument had been considered and the reasons for rejecting it and
he wrote much longer opinions than the sum of the others. but i did learn that the respect of the litigant. and even more important he wrote his own opinion, that's the point i wanted to make he wrote on the yellow pads which are necessary but he wrote them out in longhand so i learned the value and full of the same practice although they made valuable additions largely because the judge did and when
it was first typed up that was it a. he did and to go through a series of changes. the changes suggested but sometimes they would set them and sometimes they wouldn't. so that's the thing is going to say i was going to say i learned the importance of the first draft because you do learn more you learn about it rather than accepting the moment prepared by somebody else. >> were you the first to justice justice who had been a supreme court clerk? >> i was third. the first was byron white who i'd met during world war ii and i guess that was the second. bill rehnquist had been a clerk
in the bill was and bill was the senior to me as a justice but later now there are several. >> did you explain how to shape your work as a justice? >> i didn't ask to join. but i think i had a feel for what goes on the record as a result. as i think our students start law school can you talk about with the pool is and why you didn't participate? a
>> i don't believe it refers to the people that write them but in any event all the justices except justice alito have certain memos written on every case and so they all receive the same advice from the clerk did the same as ice he slew the pool it is the case before was the case before the circles heard it and i think that's the risk of recommendation to deny or call of the use or something like that. so i think it is surgical as a matter of some of the cases.
however today's that oral argument? >> when i was there i considered it a very important part of the process. it's frequently changes your thinking on the case or gave you a new insight into a particular issue that might not have occurred to you just reading the briefs. i think that it is sufficient why it explains why they don't publicize the argument because televising the argument might bring about changes in the procedure you can't anticipate because whenever television gets into the new arena it sometimes has an unexpected impact on the people who were being televised
so my strongest argument against publicizing is if it ain't broke don't fix it. i reflect on the fact that judges think that the argument is important and i think that my colleagues felt the same way. >> is justin kershner here? do you think that there should be recorded on video and broadcast live? you don't think they should be. >> i just changed on the issue because it would be healthy for the public to witness the arguments as they go on because they would be impressed and probably surprised how prepared the members of the court or so
it would be well to have the opportunity to see the arguments. but i also unbalanced you are better off to make a decision that won't fit in its effect question though. >> do people recognize you? >> won a think one of think about the court being broadcast is that it becomes much more public. that's the reason for not doing it because you're really not a public figure you are just a wild recognized general. your name may be known that when you hear the name like john stevens or john smith.
i almost never recognize outside. >> i haven't been to any argument since i retired that i'm informed that there is even more active in the questioning and then when i was there and of course there were a lot of questions. there are pluses and minuses on that. everyone had an opportunity to ask any questions if he were she wants but as you take a it defeats the purpose day to defeat the purpose of the argument. >> when you ask questions, what was your goal? >> there was an issue that hadn't been spelled out in the briefs. sometimes i would ask the same question to both adversaries
that would help me understand a problem is bothering you when me when you think about the case and on occasion he would ask the question while you made up your mind that really doesn't hold water then you ask your question if you designed to explode due to expose the fraud of the most i asked were seeking information that i thought might be helpful. >> what about good supreme court arguments as people are starting to think about being an advocate as their advice that you would give? >> guest: first, read the record before anything else you know what the case is all about and all the details because the judges on the bench will rely on
lawyers to fill gaps in on the briefs and so first you have to know is that record and of course you have to think through what you want to say and narrow the number of points sound so if you take some notes obviously a teacher to get through those points before all the questioning. a >> do >> do you have any teeth pulled -- been accused to be honest in your briefs and acknowledge in the serious problem in the case to try to beat beat its head on, don't try to bury in the footnote and we are not going to
be as sad with the answers that you must think through the issues and explain them the best you can because you realize you have to try to figure out what to do based on what you say. >> you talked earlier the fact that your mother is a christian scientist. you served in the military. did that reflect your views on the court? >> i'm sure that it did. the warhead did in the navy.
it was analyzing the communication. most of the communications couldn't be read. some could be translated by the cryptographers but i'm especially the volume was traffic and was sending message home etc. and one thing i can remember was he told me he received a message from the shift to the truck area of the naval base in the south pacific and if the battleship is down there it's very important thinking about where.
it's not long after i took after that i got copies of the same messages that he had analyzed and the cole had been garbled. it was just a personal base in the routine so i learned to be aware of marbles. [laughter] when reading statutes you have to be aware. there are times they do not reflect the address intended which is one of the points my friend and i finally disagreed
upon. he said you should never look at legislative history because you're giving prominence to the staff and i think that you should look largely at this if you possibly can to be sure you understand the statute and the words that they use were not the equivalent of garbled so that did have an impact. >> since we had an event last week's basic >> he argues legislative history should be used in interpreting. he said he set up a lot of experience in congress and i spent a couple of years and
people are prone to study the history because they think that you can either learn more about it is too much detail but i explain the complication of those and he had a little trouble understanding it but he said why don't we put the judges decide on that one man had he actually thought that it could be sorted out through the judicial process. >> and you agree.
i would give ecowas and the statutory case because that's in the congress. he had to settle rule as valuable and let congress take. what did congress have in mind? weight did the drifters have in mind? it's part of your analysts. you try to find out what you can put that isn't necessarily the answer. there are some provisions that have been meaning to do the opposite to what the framers
intended that they didn't understand the full implications the establishment clause was designed to protect the christian religion that they were not going to pretend to be protected and that is demonstrated by the temporary but when you look at the obvious you can't have the freedom of religion freedom of religion for protestants and athletes and then for jews and mormons and so forth. so the principles they be broader than their actual intent in your opinion has changed over time when you are on the court
>> i don't think of any. joe asks who is the funniest justice that he worked for? to >> of >> i think antonin scully -- soviet and if there are others they are with a nice group of people. i don't know if they mentioned my friend is byron white nobody is in the conference room except the judges and busy telephone and when the phone in the conference room rings it's almost certainly a wrong number.
it's a bigger generation and i think that he should because he was an all-american football player and a generally very good athlete and he would use the gym has a ceiling in the courtroom and he would go into triple and play basketball and shoot baskets and the sound in the courtroom would be distracting as a result of byron's activity you may not play football while court is in session. [laughter] >> now did the justices get along? >> they really do. they are wonderful people. it's interesting you have some pretty firm disagreements no doubt about that, but everybody understands the sort of general
rule you are just doing the best you can. sometimes you have to put stronger language in your opinion and it rarely happened that there were times i had some strong language independent and another justice might say are you sure that you really want to say that? >> which justice did you serve with served with that you most admire and why? >> i thought about that and i'm not sure because in different areas by the different justices for different reasons by a respected all of them that i worked with and they were
exceptional people. i like to see thurgood marshall but my strongest admiration is what he did before he was the justice. that's the hard work he did he's a very remarkable person. >> i'm not sure that i don't have a single -- one other example we were quite good friends and he had been engaged in a form of the intelligence we had some background in common. he was a good friend although he disagreed on the merits of the case. >> did the deliberations among
the justices affect the outcomes of? >> [inaudible] >> how much between the justice and how important this is? >> it's important of course but the amount varies with the cases. into some of the cases the deliberation is a very brief but almost in tire lead occurs at the conference. at the end of the week we took the cases from tuesday and wednesday at the deliberation is orderly at the conference and just speaking in turn going around the table and usually the discussion is over when someone has spoken that there will be back-and-forth later on that way
the time the conference is over most of the cases have been decided and then will come out of the way that they decided to conference but there are some cases that are difficult and the deliberations occur at later times on spontaneous occasions. >> when you where the senior justice thinking about who to assign the opinion to what do you think about and is not it is that part of the process? >> it with various. the responsibility was to try to pick the justice who would do
the best job of writing an opinion. on occasion we would think it was a close case and that's the person who ought to write the opinion because i thought i found very often when you're writing on an opinion your views become more firm than they were before and so i thought that if you assign the case to the person who is least committed he will stick by his original vote once he spoke spelled out the reasons for it whereas if you assign a key may lose the court if it is a 5-for case. in other areas the person has shown the best understanding of the case.
>> george asks how do you build the majority do you have any strategies? >> you just do your best at the conference to explain why the case should be explained in one way and hope that you are persuasive to the other and sometimes when one is in doubt you may try to talk to them later to further convince them or unconvincing, whatever it might be that the rest is just a straightforward discussion of the merits. hispanics are justice brennan famously talked about the majorities through the charm and personal persuasion. >> he was a charming guy and we liked him very much.
he was a very effective advocate, too but i'm not sure the charm persuades the court. i think though and need no very good friends and charming people but they didn't try to convince each other all that often. >> i won't even ask you what case they tried to convince each other on. >> i don't have one readily available. >> i want to go back to your nomination. were you surprised to be nominated for the supreme court? >> yes they might explain the timeframe was quite short between douglas resignation and
the nomination and during the period the newspapers have a list of people they thought were likely nominees and i was surprised to find myself mentioned publicly as a possible nominee and then even more surprised of course when he made the decision to. >> it was a remarkable decision by president ford because there was a time in which the nation was still suffering from watergate and there is a crisis in the rule of law and if there that there were a lot of people who were being pushed for different groups, conservatives, which betty ford said that carl is no would be a good supreme court nominee and president ford
decided that it should be someone with outstanding integrity and extraordinary ability and deep commitment to the rule of law and he picked you and i think that's why he was so proud of your selection. [laughter] >> so what was the preselection like? you saw your name in the newspaper. >> i think four or five days before he actually made the decision he had dinner at the white house in which she had invited maybe 25 or 30 judges most of whom were candidates and
i was invited and met the president for the first time at that dinner at this agreement or justices and we kind of knew that the pending nomination had something to do with the dinner and i do remember meeting the president for the first time he came over to our table and talked about the financial crisis in new york and the federal government asked to pour in some money. i don't remember the details but i do remember being very impressed about the fact that the president was a good lawyer and a thoroughly understood the issues and explained what was going on in a way