tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 11, 2014 12:30am-2:31am EST
what is the core argument and what is this for tpp, for example. >> the core argument starts with the economics. cecily fair. 80% of the purchasing power outside the u.s. to grow and create good jobs. and we have to be engage in international market. the market is wide open, the average is about 1.5% and we don't use regulations and that's not true around the world. and this is how we help to increase this with american workers and american armors, helping to grow jobs here, grow wages here to the middle class. the second part of the argument is it is important that we are
proactive to help set the rules of the role and tram road for global trading. that starts in the asia pacific where there are multiple waddles about how it is conducted and it's important that we have that >> is about ensuring that there is a strong trading system the likes our interests and i would say that there's a strong importance and there is a key part of our rebalancing strategy and we are a specific power in the way in which the u.s. will be embedded economically and will have broad benefits as well. >> you mentioned that this is a path that they take. describe exactly what protections we are talking about remap.
>> and senator obama was running for president, that men that we had to take labor and environmental issues and pulling them into the center and having strong obligations and making them subject to the same kind of settlements and access for all the others. and that is exactly what we are doing not just through canada and mexico but establishing that as the standard for this region and for the global economy. >> i know you talked about at your home and the afl-cio to the they are happy. >> we have a lot of contact back and forth and they've had a lot of input into the agreement with labor chapters and other elements of the chapter, the rules of origin, etc. i won't go words in their mouth
where they stand in the agreement, but we certainly have work to ensure that this agreement raises labor standards. and we are working to ensure that there is the strongest fabric and that everything we are doing to do this is to help drive production and manufacturing in the night dates. and when you look at all the factors that we have in the united states and it's a great market, we have strong rule of law, skilled workforce, we have abundant sources of affordable energy and when you layer on top of that, the center of the web of agreements that will give us unfettered access to more than two thirds of the global economy and that makes the u.s. the production platform of choice were investors want to serve the u.s. market and to ship all over the world and that's going to
help with job creation, good jobs, good manufacturing here. >> there's a lot with the transatlantic and it's equally important, and if you can do this with the pacific and atlantic, were talking about more than two thirds of the world economy and picking people up bilaterally. you have a new european commission and he gave a little bit of this last week and this includes the investor state mechanism at the hands of the new trade commissioner.
including a political course and i think it took a lot of people by surprise. my question is if the commission decides not to include the dispute settlement in this talk, is it a dealbreaker for the united states? smackers well, we welcome the point of the commission and we see it as an opportunity to have a fresh start in the negotiations. in regards to mr. protections generally, neither of them won't do anything to constrain the ability to regulate in the public interest and that is why we have worked for negotiation to raise the standard on this.
to make it clear that they can regulate the public interest. >> it's a political debate to get around. >> that is correct. am i think it's very important government can regulate and that we have safeguards to ensure that these procedures are used appropriately and we can make it fully transparent so that labor unions and civil society organizations participate in that they can submit this. >> that is not what most people think. they think that this is a sort of something to trample on democracy. >> i think that's why we need to make it clear what it is and what it is them. and that applies to a number of things. there's a lot of mythology with what we're trying to negotiate and we're not trying to negotiate. it's important that we be proactive and that europeans are proactive. none of us want to compromise
the ability of our government to regulate. and all of us think that investment protection fundamentally gives investors the same rights that we give foreign direct investors in the united states. and that is a high standard investment that is all about. we asked if you agreed that we would have the highest standards of any agreement negotiated in this area. >> and is that worth having? >> i'm not going to negotiate here. and it's hard to imagine a high standard agreement. this is intended to be an agreement that is a model for the rest of the world and it's hard to imagine those that didn't have this as well. that means raising the standard in europe has 1400 agreements that have this in the u.s. has
about 40. the most active users are european countries. >> i believe that that originates with a lot of these. and so i think it's important that we look at the accusations out there and we take them very seriously that the united states and europe recognize that we get it and we don't want to compromise the ability of governments to regulate. and it doesn't have the impact on investors because we know that they are back at home as well and those are key part of it. >> in terms of your expectations , what kind of deadlines are we talking about.
and could you get a specific deal by january or february? two we think the substance is here and we've just come out of this and i think all 12 of us see the final agreement has is being crystallized and we can see where this is heading and we are closing of issues, were making progress on the market access and we have a way to go and were focused on getting it done. >> you've had a lot of this in terms of dialogue with the europeans, does having this commission draw a line under some of the difficulties that you have had over the last year? >> we worked well and we had a good partner. this gives us an opportunity to start fresh and to lay out a work plan for the coming months.
>> thank you for allowing me to machine gun your questions. [laughter] >> on the next "washington journal", georgia mission university looks at the lame-duck session and it begins in january. and then the american legion executive director verna jones discusses veterans issues including employment and access to health care. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> doctor anthony fauci spoke about the ebola outbreak in west africa. this is 15 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. welcome, doctor, the first question is where are we. there's a declining slope just
in the curve are we up or down? >> we are still going, if you look at the latest report there are about 13,000 and about 5000 plus and so maybe a little bit more. so if you look at liberia, which has been one of the centers, the cases are going down and you can monitor this. one of the concerns we have about getting complacent about that is that can go in waves so that as it goes down in the city, you can start to see upscaling and then the sierra leone which was a bit behind shows that we could have an uptick. so mainly it is going down and we have to be careful before we say we are on the right track.
>> can a project where could go? and you look at latin america, how likely do you think that is two. >> reason we have this extraordinarily devastating situation today is what i refer to as the perfect storm. people don't realize that there have been, since 1976 when it was first recognized, that there have been about 24 outbreaks most have been in remote areas in which you could actually contain it. this is the first time that we've had an academic epidemic more than the others combined. contact tracing and health care structure that allows you to identify somebody and isolate them and keep them out of
society. the only way you can spread it is by coming into the direct contact with the fluid of someone's body. so to answer your question if we have the health care system where you can at least do contact tracing, it is her very unwise that there could be an outbreak in that country and the perfect storm is that they had everything going against them, they had porous borders as it wrapped itself around and they are archrival interrelations where we go across the board, custom to distrust of authority, that's how you have the outbreak and although potentially could have this in developed countries among nigeria would do a very good job of stopping the outbreak there, they had cases, but they want secondary and tertiary spread. and so we are hoping that the
best way to protect the rest of the world is to suppress the epidemic in west africa. >> you treated a patient yourself. can you describe what you did? it's interesting to learn. >> well, people that die and do poorly with ebola, essentially lose an incredible amount of fluid through diarrhea or vomiting. very rarely when you look at the motion picture depictions of this disease, bloody eyes and bleeding, that occurs in a very small percentage of people, most die from hypovolemia shock and that means that you can't get enough fluid into them and these are the things with this system is going, they get completely out of whack and that's how you have a very high mortality. depending upon the strain of where you are, it can be as high as 90% working go down as low as
40. but it's very curious of the patients we have taken care of here in the united states, we have tertiary care, intensive care capabilities that the only person who has died is thomas duncan, who came in very sick into the dallas hospital and the seven patients did very well because we gave them tertiary care in u.s. medicine and replenishment of fluids and monitoring of electrolytes and things like that. >> so if you can't get adequate health care it can reduce it? >> yes, it will reduce it and it will be very much diminished. >> okay, so that has been the last question and so how -- how many health care workers we need in africa and then can you talk about the dispute of how we should regulate this in this country and how we should regulate that whole flow of things. >> let's just talk about the
first point and that is that we need hospital beds, as you know, the united states has stepped to the plate and we have up to now and that includes those as we take care people there. so you give them an incentive to go and you're on your own and that is not what we are talking about. the rest is we have a lot of volunteers and the department of defense is committed to setting up 17100 bed hospitals and there are many more coming and we need hundreds if not thousands of health care workers and that is coming, i hope that that is already contributing to the downtick that we are seeing in liberia and if that is the case it will go up. the issue with this conflict is that it's taken out of proportion that if you look at the situation of how ebola is
transmitted, it's only to either by direct contact with bodily fluids of someone ill, not just feeling bad but ill. so if you don't come into contact you're not going to get infected. we've been taking care of these people since 1976 and we know that's how it's transmitted and the issue of what was just mentioned about quarantining, not only people that are traveling from west africa, but health care workers who donated their and their time, if you have a blanket, just where people can't do things for 21 days, we feel that that would be a disincentive, but that doesn't mean that the people who are promoting that are doing anything wrong. i believe that they are trying to protect their insurgencies.
it's just that as a health person i would say that you look at the data and it tells you what the risk is. and if someone comes back rather than putting everyone in one bucket, either your warranty and are you can do what you want, i think that both of those are extreme. what the cdc recommendations are is that you match the stratification of someone being infected versus the stratification of how you monitor them and the degree to which you restrict them. so if someone is at a high risk and comes back if they are symptomatic right away you get isolated and treated and even if you don't have symptoms and you are at high risk, you don't travel and you don't get on the subway and that's already in the guidelines and i don't think people appreciate that. but then there are other people who are at summer and some that are at low risk.
so the guidelines say don't put everyone in the same bucket. if someone is coming back and all of a sudden they day you cannot come out an apartment or the facility for 21 days because if that happens, we are concerned that health care workers who are donating their time when they come back and have no reason why they should be quarantined, that will be a disincentive for them to go and i know because these are my colleagues. the fact is they would say that i'm going to take out a month of my life to go there and then when i come back if i have symptoms i definitely don't want to be in society, but i want to protect myself in society. but if i am well with no symptoms, i want to get back to doing the thing that i do. and i think that is a thing that i would say there's a
controversy about it. because i think they are acting in good faith and i don't think it's based upon what we know about the scientific data. >> the fear in the public attention that seems gigantic compared to the fatalities, how would you prepare this? >> in my 30 year prayer, the hiv crisis in the beginning, that was interesting with the other side of the coin because there was an emergence of a phenomenal historic pandemic that towards anything else and it was not a lot of attention paid to it and it was fear in society that was unreal is a and they had this in the same school or going into an area where a key waiter is
waiting on you. that was one level and then there was the attack right after 9/11 until after the 9/11 attack on the world trade center and the pentagon, people were very spooked and then you had this right here in our own city and everyone was at a rate of touching their mail and thinking they were going to die of anthrax. but this one has a special flavor because if you look at ebola and you look at "the new york times" and they said people extrapolate what they see in west africa with what they think might happen here. i think what we're seeing is a catastrophic crisis in west africa and an epidemic of fear here. i don't criticize it. but i think that you have to evaluate your relative risk
based on scientific evidence and i think that to this day two people have got infected while they are here. and those people, two of them were making themselves in harms way by taking care of a patient in a hospital. and i don't know, but taking a look at what happened with the fear that it generated. >> so how do you communicate this? >> you know, david, you have to, through all of the crises that i've been through, you have to respect the fear people come he can't say why, you have to explain to them and you have to do it over and over that if you look at the scientific evidence of how it's transmitted, you have to give an example and. and i think the best examples is
that the two nurses, and i had the privilege of taking care of one of them, nina pham was a patient of mine last week, some of you know we discharge her and she's doing well, those two people got infected from mr. duncan when he was desperately ill in a dallas hospital and they were taking care of him when he got infected. he had contacted and had contact with many family members while he was at and none of those family members have gotten ebola. so what that tells you if you look at the scientific evidence that the way that you get it is by direct intimate contact with the body fluids of someone who is truly sick. not someone well with no fever, not ill. the risk is that essentially zero because it's not transmitted that way.
>> as you mentioned, why does this keep going on? what we do? should there be the ability to take care of this? >> this is going to get under control predominately via health care measures meaning that we have the kind of acceleration that hopefully other countries will do and hopefully it gets under control before we have the need to use a vaccine. but right now we are rapidly on the fast track, we started it and it was here and by november to produce the right response and then we are going to go on a much larger trial in west africa to see if it works. you don't want to give a vaccine to anybody if it doesn't work very and in so what about the
next outbreak and that is something that we really need to look at it as a global community. this is a concept that is called the global health security agenda in which you have a network of being able to monitor the outbreaks of this and to have a system that you can track it stop it at its source and also you have to look at the health care infrastructure of countries and those are the countries in which outbreaks occur. so you have to include the global health security agenda and you have to convince the world that this attention is as important as anything else they do it the country. >> with that, thank you very much. >> congress returns to capitol hill this week, but that house
and senate on wednesday we'll be back. they are scheduled to debate which will allow current and former presidents to restrict access from their time in the white house. house republicans will hold leadership elections and then the democrats have scheduled theirs for november 18 very orientation this week will be held for new members. senate votes expected and childcare development block grants. and watch the house live on c-span and the senate on c-span2. >> coming up next, job creation, income disparity, and the u.s. trade agenda and then the washington ideas forum, this is 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone, thank you for being here with us. i'm the president of atlantic lives and i'm delighted to welcome you to the washington ideas forum. it's great to see all of you here and it's going to be an exceptional morning and this whole event is the bright old dna of the atlantic. it was created six years ago in a town where hunter street often was, where we would bring together thoughtful people with the most interesting issues of our time. reflecting real curiosity.
we believe that this is a place to understand our world in a more profound way. it includes our friends and partners and his team that came together along with shelby from the museum and they begin right here. no one was sure back then if the notion in washington would catch fire, but it didn't. this is the biggest year yet and more people are attending this gorgeous theater. this morning will be a captivating source for those inside and out of washington who are changing the world in a way that we live and we have cake makers and so much more. before we kick it off, none of its possible without the support of our sponsors and i would like to name them. we would like to have recognized comcast at the supporting level
the american federation of teachers and the national council for the behavior of help and google. including the knowledge underwriter. this includes margaret carlson and steve clemons were the masterminds behind this and the two will lead us through this morning to get us rolling. >> thank you, margaret. one, everyone. good morning. thank you for being here and let's jump right in. penny is used to running things and she will probably outrun you outside the boardroom and these days you will find her running throughout the business community and she has confirmed with nearly 1300 business
leaders to name her america's top ceo. we are pleased to join her as they open the washington ideas forum. [applause] >> thank you, madam madame secretary for being with us. thank you for being here to listen and let me just say i'd like to start by asking a clear something up that been confused about since i heard from another over the weekend. the corporations create jobs? >> just. ..
you didn't build that. corporations don't create jobs. where does that come from and what's the difference between the two parties in the role of the private sector? >> well you know, when i was confirmed in the senate, senators on both sides of the aisle have told me commerce is a bipartisan issue so the way i look at it is you know our job at the department of commerce is to really focus on serving america's businesses and creating the conditions so that they can thrive and therefore they can create jobs. so there's not a huge, from my
standpoint is not a huge amount of difference. we know what we have to do. we know that we have to invest in infrastructure to support business. that how we go from broadband to roads to bridges tour internet. >> there's no difference between the two parties why have now we done at? >> i don't know, that's a good question because to me when i talk on the hill everybody's excited about the potential for what we can do. trade agreements. whether i'm in portland oregon talking to a bicycle manufacturer or new york city talking to a large corporation all of them want trade agreements because everyone knows that their supply chains are now intertwined. and so that's another thing we need to focus on. these are the kinds of things that we have to do in government to create the conditions. tax policy. our corporate tax policy is not competitive globally. we need to address that. these are the kinds of things that should be happening and he
now i'm an optimist but hopefully once we get election season behind us whenever that is, then we can move forward and address these issues. but in the meantime let's look at what we have accomplished. a lot has happened and president obama deserves a lot of credit for the kind of momentum that we are seeing in our economy. we have seen job creation. the longest streak of job creation ever in the history of the country. more jobs created in the united states than in japan, europe and the oecd countries combined or the developed countries combined. and so you see gdp, you see manufacturing. we are having for the first time in decades we have not only are we creating manufacturing jobs but manufacturing output is up. there's a lot going on that's exciting in our economy. >> is that why the american public is so happy right now? >> i think one of the reasons,
the work that needs to be done is around you know what are we doing about income? i think that's a big part of the frustration. now the good news is yesterday consumer confidence visited a seven-year highs so you know i think attitudes are changing but we have to address income. income disparity. it's a real problem and it's also something at this point now where we are seeing unemployment down below 6%. it's time to really focus on how do we address income disparity and what's interesting to me on the minimum wage is i have talked and as steve said i have talked to 1300 business leaders since i have been in this job. no one has said to me that they object to the minimum wage proposal, a federal minimum wage and in fact privately number of businesses the problem they are facing is the fact that we have
different policies an state-by-state and they would rather see a uniform policy. >> you mentioned businesses. privately business seems to agree with a lot of the things that the administration is talking about but they don't seem to have any clout. >> while i think it's a question of clout with whom and when but i think the most important thing is when i talk to business leaders coming into its talk to your employees. we live in a day and age where every person now is empowered. we have a phone and a twitter account and instagram etc. so we have to speak to everyone not just aid businesses that in my job i speak to business leaders and talk to them and also frankly that to our customers at the department of congress -- department of commerce.
i'm focused on what do they need and what are the conditions they need to grow and create jobs in america? >> you mention that you are an optimist. i read the polls than and it appears he may be the only optimist right now. i'm wondering as you look at what the situation is in the country how people are feeling, if you have a far-flung relative who was out of it in terms of contemporary u.s. politics and you were explaining to them why your party is about to get hammered in the election in a week how would you explain not? >> for me it's hard to explain because i'm a numbers person. i've done more reading in this job every day lots of reading but i'm a numbers person. if you look at the statistics are economy is doing great. we have 4.6% gdp growth. we are creating as i said job growth 55 months consecutive job
growth that i think it has to do with the fact, i think one of the challenges and what i said as we have got work to do on income disparity and i think people want to see not only that they have a job and they have more confidence in the job but they have got in they want to have confidence that their incomes are growing. that's something that we need to focus on. whether it's from janet yellen are the president of the united states so that's where we need it. >> let me ask you about incomes because i did a panel with pat candle as you may offer an member. he was president carter's pollster and strategist and he sang the reason the public as unhappy as the economic policies of both democrats and republicans have failed the country. i wonder from your perspective if the underlying reality is that the reason they failed is that the united states has now lost the commanding position once had in the world economy after the second world war and
we are now and will be a force long as the eye can see in competition with hundreds of millions of people in asia and elsewhere whose living standards are lower than ours. why should anybody believe that we can raise incomes of average people which haven't really gone up for 30 years or so. >> john john i disagree with your fundamental premise. first of all this country is in a terrific position. the number one place in the world to invest. imf just came out and said the strongest economy in the world so i think, let me throw it back at you. how about all this negativity that you guys in the press are talking about? let's talk about the good news is opposed to the bad. i'll. >> have you a check our approval rating? [laughter] when you think about the last two years of the obama presidency which are looking
forward obviously there are a lot of things you can do as commerce secretary and president obama can do on his own executive authority but there something in the congress for her. do you have a plan a if we have a democratic senate and the plan b if we have republican senate and what's the difference between the two? >> no there is one planned in the plan is, everybody knows we have to do. they keep coming back to the same things. we have to invest in our infrastructure. we all know that we have depreciation occurring in our infrastructure so we have got to make that a priority. we are looking at how to figure out how it can bring more private sector money to the table but the at the same time the public sector has to, and we can do things for six months. he can't make the kinds of investments that are necessary with six months of funding. you need to have knowledge that we should be investing in our country. we need to pass the trade promotion authority and i think
we are close to getting tpp done. this is really important. free trade is really important. i just got back from japan and korea and realized if we can get tpp finished which i have all the confidence in the world and our u.s. trade representative and the team that included number of members from the department of commerce in a negotiation that we will get this done. that's 40% of the world's gdp where you are taking away nontariff barriers, where you are really creating a much bigger level playing field for our companies which ultimately translates into jobs here. we have to realize the united states, we are pretty much open for trade today. it's not like we have big tariffs in place in a lot of our sectors. the rest of the world there are a lot of barriers to our companies. these are really important agreements for us to get done but they are also important for the rest of the world to get
done. the infrastructure trade tax reform. we want to make -- we need to be competitive with the rest of the world and we also need to asse assess -- and innovation. >> is miss the point when he said tax reform which both parties have been saying for a couple of years isn't this the point where not everyone should realize this is a great idea but it's not actually going to happen? >> well it takes leadership and it means the president has called for tax reform orbit last several years but you need partners to do that. we need heads of various committees that would take leadership. he needs partners there to get that done. and i think that we have to do a good job of explaining to the average person how that translates into a benefit and job creation in america. >> were explaining to the national association of manufacturers while you are going to take away manufacturing credits in order to give, lower the tax rate for companies who
don't. >> there are trade-offs and that is the kind of work that has to be done. it's important to do in order to, so that american businesses can be competitive globally. let's also talk about innovation and investment in innovation. the president has called for a network of manufacturing hubs around the united states. we have done five of them so far and there will be eight in operation by the end of next year. we need to stay competitive. so further to your question our statement about our position is it's important that the united states dan a cutting-edge of innovation. the manufacturing hubs the federal government puts up by mere mortal standards 50 to $70 million of significant taxpayer dollars but in the context of what we are trying to accomplish not huge dollars. that serves as a catalyst to
bring together universities, the private sector, the community colleges in the supply chain around innovative technologies that we should be leading the world then. 3-d printing, composite materials, lightweight materia materials, design, intranet design, photon makes. these are areas we should be leading the world in and you know that's a huge part of our gdp growth since 2009 in their employment growth has been in these areas where we are leading the world. and we have a capacity to do that so this is another area we should be seeking out. >> our time is short and i want. >> i know you are a sports guy so i'm ready for you. >> i remember a conversation with your friend phil bailey was chief of staff a couple of years ago. he said we are doing a study and
some people think let's organize the government and the ustr government reform and i guess my overall question is why should the commerce department -- you see a big push on republicans who say that's crony capitalism. that's picking winners and losers. >> do you know what the commerce department does? >> you take winners and losers. >> no we give you a patent or trademark. we have a national weather service. we manage the economy of the coastlines of the country. we are the international trade administration so we help companies who want to sell their goods overseas. we help them export and we help companies who want to invest in the united states. those are among -- and we do economic statistics. >> so on a charge of crony capitalism you say what? >> i say we are service organization and our customers are the business community and these are services that
businesses need. as i said i have talked to 13 countries. they want their services. they need the data that we put together in order to do what they do which is ultimately create jobs. >> the last question. one of the byproducts of this incomes are rising occupy wall street movements of that time criticism of the 1% and i wond wonder, you are a 1% are. i wonder how you react when you hear some of your fellow 1% or is, and there are some who have said this over and over in the last couple of years, that obama hates business. he's hostile to successful people. some have even said america is becoming like nazi germany with the persecution of the top 1%. what do you say when you hear that? >> first of all i think i'll --
is crazy. [applause] this is a great country and it's still a country of opportunity. the president is a terrific leader and the president work works -- his job is to work with all constituencies. he works with the businesses. they were more business leaders in and out of the white house giving advice or working with people like me were throughout the administration than anyone ever talks about. that's why we keep track at the department of commerce and the number businesses coming in and out. that's just coming in seeing me. that's not talking about everybody. >> do you hate people with money? >> no him that's crazy. he works with all kinds of constituents in his job is to try and find the best path forward for the country. i think it's been doing a heck of a job at a difficult circumstance where the rhetoric is very negative. >> would you all join me in
>> please take your seats. we are ready to begin. welcome to bar panel on complicated coalition dynamics, fighting terrorism and other priorities. my name is michelle dunne and i'm a senior associate here in the middle east program at the carnegie endowment. one announcement before we start. we understand that some are having trouble accessing wi-fi. our i.t. team is working on this but please be aware that if you have a smartphone and if you are more -- you have partly updated to isab will be in not be able to connect to wi-fi. there's a problem with that. at any rate why would you need wi-fi right now? we have a fabulous panel for you to listen to talking about the coalition against isis.
we are going to begin as we go down the table here. our first participant is soli ozel professor of international relations at hopps university. he is a columnist and he has been an adviser to the chair of tbi in turkey. abdulaziz saga as chairman and founder of the gulf research center. i'm sorry chairman and founder of the gulf research center. he is president of the saga group holding in this kingdom of saudi arabia active in information technology aviation services and investment. this time as a speaker are owned marwan muasher vice president of the middle east at carnegie endowment. now there has been a lot of discussion about the coalition partners and the dynamics among them and the dynamics between
them and the united states for example and how all of this shapes the willingness of the coalition partners to cooperate against the islamic state. we welcome comments on that in this panel but we also want to go a little bit beyond that a little bit deeper and look at the domestic developments inside these countries because of course every country has its own unique situation that it brings to the situation. we want to talk about how each of these countries, how both the government and the public views the islamic state. what does that mean in a country of question? doesn't represent a threat? does it receive support? what kind of threat doesn't represent, security, political, cultural, religious and how did these perceptions shaped what country is willing to do in the coalition against the islamic state. also perhaps a little bit to say
about the practical military capabilities and limitations of these countries and participating this coalition. this also i think a little bit of an issue of a definitional problem against terrorism. you will notice that there -- the word terrorism is in quotes in this panel because there may be some differences between the united states and some of its coalition partners and among the different coalition partners about what defines terrorism, what kind of groups are involved and so forth. we want to ask well that contradiction proved a serious impediment to cooperation and? can we find common ground in any case? one brief moment of advertisement i want to point out that my colleagues that carnegie on thursday with arab counterterrorism cooperation in the region ripe for extremism. it's outside of the publications
rack. let's turn first to turkey's soli because very much in the news now with turkey allowing the kurdish peshmerga through turkey into serious so if you could begin with some brief remarks about how you see turkey's position in this conflict and how particularly the domestic situation in turkey shapes what it will and will not be willing to do. >> thank you. good morning. i will do my best. now as the number of conferences, panels, lectures that i attend increase, i see how helpless, clueless everyone is and how everyone shares their responsibility in the mess that we collectively find yourself in the middle east.
not just the great powers but also regional actors and regional states certainly. so given that fact although i personally am within turkey as someone fairly critical, it actually very critical of the president's policies and i've been that way for the certainly the last three years at least they really think there is a projection of turkey that is not altogether warranted about how responsible turkey is for a lot of the mess that they are in. we find a lot of the coverage on the turkey informative but a lot of it also really is it's not biased certainly lacking nuance in determining what the issues are or giving it the correct
interpretation. now there is no doubt that turkey is at best a very reluctant member of the so-called coalition. certainly in terms of what its primary purpose is not to be. as a result of that we have seen probably the unprecedented public falling apart of two main partners to keep on correcting one another's statements. if the americans say it will please the turks say the no it will not be his. if the americans say something will happen the turks say something will not happen. our president can say one thing and then the next day we learn he drafted a phonecall with a conversation with president obama and thinks it actually change to the united states was
not supposed to be helping. the united states did help and quite frankly in terms of alliance relations is it's a very embarrassing site. so when one wonders what is going wrong in terms of communication that must exist between turkey which again is the only country bordering iraq and syria where they hold a big chunk of territory. that is also a nato member with plenty of capabilities but not necessarily militarily and its major partner to the united states. it's inexplicable to me that they have not managed to find a common language or a nonembarrassing language in public in order to actually discuss what their problems are. that leads me to think there's a big difference between the united states looks at what's
going on and how turkey looks at what's going on. to the best of my ability as i see it obviously turkey is different. when you look at the resolution of the turkish parliament that was passed and he looked especially when you read its preamble it is quite obvious that for the turkish government the pkk, the assad regime are at best equal threats and some can argue based on the number of times the pkk in the assad regime are mentioned that particularly the assad regime ought to be far more significant threat to turkey security and certainly to the conditions are the situation in iraq and syria. now, there is no doubt that in the past when everybody was
thinking that assad would be like everybody else in a relatively short period of time the turkish government did in a rush commits some mistakes, made a lot of misjudgments and it had miscalculated its toleration of many diverse elements going in and out of syria using turkish borders helped by a certain civil society organizations within turkey how this would actually boomerang. i would argue that whatever turkey's faults might've been before i think there is recognition in the security community of the state that die each is indeed a major security threat for the kurdish republic. then you may wonder why doesn't turkey then do more whatever
moore morris supposed to mean? i would argue that probably it is the domestic repercussions of taking them are actively open part against die each that is bothering her making the turkish government -- because at the end of the day but i think is happening inside the country is that this general sunni sentiment that the previous panel had actually presented to us is also being shared by not a significant part of the turkish population but a nonnegligible part of the turkish population and although i have not yet seen any poll numbers indicating that we are moving in that direction there may be a rising sympathy
for the islamic state to the extent that it is being seen under attack by americans by the westerners or by the shia. therefore i think the main concern of the turkish state in trying to find its proper strategy and proper tactics in dealing with the threat of isis is really have to make sure that the nonexisting orders between the i.s. outside of the country in the i.s. inside the country how that can be controlled whether or not turkey would be vulnerable to terrorist activities within its borders should its engagement with the coalition forces be interpreted as -- and could not be anything else. of course today we have seen in the pictures and the photographs
how 160 peshmerga actually have gone through turkey and they are going to go into syria to help the fighters in kobani. quite frankly i have no idea how this is being seen and interpreted. whether or not the turkish public in general is sympathetic to what is going on because people are going to be helped or do they see this as an infringement of perhaps turkey sovereignty. i have seen things as the government under serious attack. finally you open by suggesting that people, the different parties definitions of what terrorism is as different. in that sense as i said the turkish government equates the pkk with the islamic state and
indeed that's one point that the president even equated .py to which is not on turkey's terrorist list because it is an extension of the pkk within syria. then i'm afraid what i think is a general view of the turkish public and that is what the government has to take into account before they can reach a common vocabulary with the u.s. administration. one final note, to the extent that the u.s. position that is contradicting everything that the turkish government says the fact that once more the american air force was bombing a neighboring country or population to the extent that is seen that way, i really wonder what is happening to the image
of the united states which has not been positive to begin with. secondly whether or not this would lead to a mood change in turkey where there has been a 19-point increase according to the german marshall transatlantic survey in favor of nato and whether or not this would actually diminish that piece of newfound love after alone period of decline for nato in the general public. >> thank you very much. we will turn out to you abdulaziz to discuss saudi arabia and the gulf states. i realize these are not one and we appreciate the extent to which you can disaggregate the position of the government and populations in the various gulf countries as well as saudi arabia as they look at the threat.
>> good morning ladies and gentlemen. thank you very much for inviting me. it's great to be back to washington. the soviet union invasion of afghanistan and al qaeda. if the u.s. invasion -- that's what you have to question. the unfinished job in the u.s. has left in iraq indeed policy of isolation is the isolation policy fully supported by iraq and has created something like daish. in 2003 zizo cholerae said i'm no longer part of al qaeda. i'm independent and my objective is different. so that starts today.
in 2003 that was the route of al-zarqawi. he was killed and we had baghdadi and 2006 we had the first announcement of the iraq focus and not iraq and syria in 2006. so there are some routes between 42013 where the announcement of daish which is passionate -- isis as you call it so giving that background saying why today we are alert and why the creation of daish what was the target for that. i think along depriving, isolation of the sunni in iraq falling too much into the hands of iran handing over iraq to iran of having massive iranian influence with the sectarian
dimension has definitely led to a situation like what you see today in iraq. also in syria we have had so many policies. we understand the importance of the chemical issue but at the same time after all of that still the moderate syrian supported at the right time. saudi arabia was an august 2012 when king abdulah wrote a letter to the syria nation. why he did that and why the time because we took all the time to softly negotiate with bashar assad and not to continue doing what he's doing but after using massive violence after the resentment and the resistance was much more split. after we had united nations resolution than the saudis try to push and interfere more in the issues of supporting the
moderate syrian opposition. now remember there was no syrian opposition historically. they were all under strong wishing. they controlled everybody and just a year before that in 2010 you remember there was a delegation visiting washington here trying to nominate a new ambassador. there was a nice relation. king abdulah took bashar assad to lebanon so there was an old nice relation but we get to the point where we start using massive -- against people is spreading u.n. resolution. i was the one who said publicly on tv i feel sorry that we have not given our condolences and our clear position prior to that. now daish ever said anything that saudi arabia? go back to the old literature. the focus in iraq is unserious.
this is a territorial interest there but for instance have we received any operation inside saudi arabia by daish like what happened in jordan in 2005 are what happened in syria or in lebanon. no. why? finally ultimately they would reach the arabian peninsula and go to the gulf to focus their operation and achievement in specific territories there. saudi arabia being accused of supporting nine i were somebody would really give a sword of -- daish is the appreciate -- abbreviation of isis. this is the arabic acronym about one so it's the arabic translation for isis, sorry. saudi arabia issue two things.
one they said if you want to combat your country we know how many saudis at least the governments try to figure out how many saudis who join them. they said go back to the embassy in istanbul and hand over yourself. you will have fair treatment but then we issue a sort of burst a list that you have identified the terrorists and the second said you have 30 days or 60 days. if you deliver yourself to the embassy then you'll have a fair trial than me look at all the laws regulations. second if you look at isis there was no leadership in isis from saudi. there's a participant from saudi arabia and we have people from bahrain and other gulf countries. but the majority was from north africa. then you have the chinese islamic salafist operation.
we loved the spring rolls but not to be part of isis so the chinese have a problem. the germans have a problem and everybody has a problem but the bit bulk number came from north africa. and there was no leadership in managing. there were the soldiers on the ground. unlike al qaeda. they targeted saudi arabia and they targeted the gulf state. they move their operation from saudi arabia to yemen to enhance to get their act together to launch whenever they can against saudi arabia and the rest of the gulf countries. why did we participate in the coalition? i think it's an important question. number one there is though -- no legitimacy to the gulf country participating could've had to take to his plot -- issued a islamic fatwa. what they're doing is wrong and they deserve to be fought and
take all necessary action. and these saudi arabia and participation gave legitimacy to this coalition that for the first time in history you have this huge number of countries acting and working together fighting a the state actor. was created as a result of a failing state in iraq as a result of an unfinished job as a result of a sectarian government that has taken a side and created a political platform or a platform that allows such a thing to go on there. so the second on what happened to mossad. it was a big story. how come a small united states activist group even if only 250,000 people takes over. what we are hearing today is we
need to spend billions of dollars before we get into the deliberation of the second venice -- biggest city in iraq. this is something that worries a lot of us in looking at it. but on the participation, first we had to show that this is strong and we will participate with it and go to war with it as they have done before the breaking of kuwait and they have done good things for some reas reason. reciprocity and strong alliances. we are both fighting terrorism. if we need to support this coalition by providing airspace, flyover basis, logistics, some financial contribution i'm sure the gulf country will be more than happy to enter into this but as a result of that we became in the list of daish, before we were part of daish and as a result the coalition we became part of daish wanted list. since they you know boys and
girls flew to -- of daish we became wanted. they became a target now for them and at the same time the threat extended from an isolated area in the north part of iraq to the gulf countries now as a result of what they are going to do. where do we stand in our church's position? we have taken the tricky position not to sign to be part of the coalition and not to send their boys and girls to fight. at the same time we decided to my political full-fledged. we are at the american friend and we appreciate that coalition may have put together. somebody like me how do i look at the new national guard phenomena established in the sunni area of? i think it is very simple.
we will have the shiite militia peshmerga in kurdistan sunni national guard in some places. if they are equipped than a prescription for separation. you call a separation because the united states is federal but for us separation would take place based on sectarianism and ethnicity so that would be the future problem we may anticipate on iraq. i think we agree with them on having a no-fly zone and second having a safe zone for the refugees and third training the syrians and making sure enough training will be given to the army of syria and the decent acceptable opposition to equip them and enhance them and at the same time targets the syrian government because it's one of the causes.
it's so funny to look at how much the world is concerned about what to call it, kobani and at the same time -- has killed 300,000 people millions of refugees and the country was destroyed for many years to come but yet nobody wanted to get rid of us thought. we will see serious engagement. i think today with a new coalition with the new welcome we have agreed we have a common threat we need to fight and to go for it. in a simple word daish does present a future threat. maybe not an instant threat for saudi arabia and the gulf countries but yes it's a future threat. if they continue and expand if they define us as part of the --
of afghanistan we definitely become a target. it's extremely important to have our act together and to fight our their common enemy together. >> thank you abdulaziz saga and now marwan your turn to express how this looks. >> i will try to address both aspects. the title of the session is fighting terrorism and other priorities implies there are other priorities for countries of the region. in fact there are not so fighting terrorism so far is limited to fighting daish and even while countries in the region acknowledged the problem of daish did not evolve overnight and there are nonmilitary reasons why daish is today so strong. but let me focus first on jordan and its part in the coalition. it's interesting that jordan today is a willing participant
in the coalition. it was not cajoled. the king has made it very clear that this is a cultural war, this is a war within islam for islam and as such jordan is going to participate full force and it. and not only that but we actually make it clear that his preference would be that it would be led by countries of the region and not by the united states. and so a very forceful position when it comes to fighting daish militarily. and jordan even though it's a small country on the military front can actually provide a lot of support to the coalition in three main areas, logistical support. the coalition is already using airbases particularly in the north of the country. intelligence support that the jordanians have a strong intelligence services and they have infiltrated al qaeda and
isis and continue to do so. i think the intelligence support is going to be crucial in this campaign. and then the third support is going to come in terms of a network of contacts that the jordanians have with the sunni tribes in iraq in particular. the iraqi prime minister was in jordan two days ago and jordan arranged for him to meet with tribal sunni chief's in which they pledged support. not all of them of course but they pledged support for the effort against isis. so on these fronts jordan can provide a lot of support to the coalition. but does isis pose a military threat to jordan? i don't think so. i don't think so because as many have said before isis has been
successful where it operated in sunni areas that felt marginalized and that felt frustrated both in syria and iraq and had grievances with the government in a failed state environment. where you have failed states in syria and iraq isis has been strong. isis has not yet won a major war against nonsunni areas. even in kobani and other areas it is not 11 single war and i don't think that isis is going to attack jordan across the desert land both in syria and iraq against a very strong jordanian army. i don't see that happening and i don't think that is going to be the case. but isis, having said that on the military front, i think causes other nonmilitary threats not just to jordan but to the whole region. it is in this area that my concern is that not much is
being done to address these nonmilitary aspects of the situation. one, i mean in terms of numbers just to give you some numbers in terms of course of pi -- core support prices in the country most analysts estimate the core support of the group and jordan to be around 5000 people. of these around 1500 are already participating. this is of course an approximate number. who knows what the numbers but i don't expect in terms of core support die-hard ideological support in the country i don't think extends beyond 5000 however having said that isis is becoming a rallying point against the establishment. so you talk to people and anybody who has grievances, not
anybody but some people who have grievances against the government not just in jordan but across the arab border is using isis as a rallying point against the establishment. this is very clear to me in many aspects. just as an anecdote, a few weeks ago we had a problem in downtown amman where illegal vendors were setting up their shop and selling their goods and blocking traffic illegally. so when the municipality attempted to talk to them and offer them alternative places and then eventually trying to remove them you know from these illegal places, they started shouting a isis slogans. it is an issue that has nothing to do with isis but at isis is
becoming a sort of a counter force to the establishment in many places in the arab world, that is worrisome. i talked to a lot of people since i've been back in the country particularly from the new generation where unemployment in jordan and in many countries around the area is over 30% among youth. if you talk to them they clearly tell you this is not our war. they don't see it as a cultural war. they don't see it as a war for values. they see it as an american war against the region. if it's an american war against the region they are not going to side with the americans. that is something that also is worrisome in my view. isis has certainly heard the reform agenda not just in jordan but across the arab world. you talk reform now in many people will tell you and the government would tell you this
is not the time to talk about reform. we need to worry about this military thing. so we are back to what i called a pre-arab uprising security moment where people are focused on one thing and one thing only which is security great of course they can't forget that the end of that road was an arab uprising but nobody seems to be thinking along these lines and everybody is back to the security mode or what we need to do now is to attack isis militarily, finish them off and then we have plenty of time to worry about the other aspects. that is an argument that concerns me as well. i agree totally that isis needs to be addressed militarily but as many people have said and even as governments in the region have also said the reason the isis has evolved in such a quick manner is because of the
exclusionary policies of some governments in the regions. everybody talks about how accurately so excluded the sunnis from the political game in iraq. everybody talks about how assad excluded everybody else in syria. but why people understand that exclusion leads to radical forces such as isis are they trying to do anything about it? in other words are governments in the region trying to change course and adopt a more english and his so that you do not reach the result of isis? none whatsoever. everybody again is in a security mode as i said whereas people understand and accurately diagnose the problem. nobody yet is trying to do
anything about the solution. that's the real issue and the real concern in my view over the long term. isis will be defeated militarily. they will not be able to expand beyond i think what they have done so far. but that's not the real threat. the real threat is to leave unaddressed a number of education and political and economic policies that will lead to the evolution of people like isis. we talk about the educational system that has failed in teaching people about inclusion and diversity in perl-ism and respect for government. is any effort being done in any arab country to have you know a fresh look at education policies of these countries? none whatsoever. we talk about the loss of economic opportunity for people
which is leaving many particularly in the young generation to flood to isis not necessarily because they agreed with this ideology but because they lack an economic approach and they find isis a way to address their economic needs. our things being done to spur growth and adopt economic policies that move away from a system that has plagued the arab world for the longest period of time? none of that is being done. certainly in the political atmosphere whereas there are clear examples, tunisia is the latest two days ago, but inclusionist policies can lead to in terms of stability and in terms of moving ahead and a rather smooth manner and what exclusion as policies can lead to an syria and iraq and egypt and elsewhere despite the clear
record over the last three years or four years of arab uprisings, this huge wake-up call. first the arab uprising in second the evolution of isis. in my view they have not yet been internalized fully and the region is still talking about military solutions. to be fair, neither the region nor the west particularly the u.s. have been good at solutions anyway. it is easy to send armies to defeat peoples. it's the easiest thing in the world but it's far more difficult to have a serious look even over time at the underlying causes that lead to the evolution of these forces. neither arab governments nor the u.s. have been good at this and i would argue not much has been done anyway in these two areas.
let me stop here. >> thank you marwan. i believe soli wanted to make a brief follow-up remark. >> i almost telegraphic we spoke and i will not abuse your tolerance for me. i just want to correct three things. one, in the previous panel we had four experts. mr. cory said he expected isis to basically break up. what they basically said is they would be durable. and if experts whose daily lives are consumed studying isis we obviously cannot make up our minds as to exactly what's going on. that really makes not just and analysis but the kind of prognosis that marwan has suggested difficult to come by particularly with the western world that is in deep crisis and the other two major powers,
russia wanting to be a gamebreaker in china just not willing to do anything positive. number two, kobani. kobani is becoming something much more important than let's say three months ago or four months ago on several counts. on the turkish issue it is true in my judgment that the turkish government thought it would be a really good idea for i.s. and the forces to actually tear each other down or whittle each other down and ultimately the united states did you use airpower in order not to allow kobani to fall. that's exactly what it had done when i.s. started to move towards erbil. that is the kurdish region was protector which give a sense and i think as abdulaziz said if he implied it may be not specifically set up that from the region's population's perspective if they are is just
one clear american policy because american policy has been anything but clear or consistent that as we will not let the kurds be beaten up by any of the other forces that surround them. that doesn't bother me particularly at all but if this is the perception than the question that he raised, well what about 250,000 people who have been killed and remember it was president obama i think on the sixth or seventh of january of 2009 who said to "newsweek," could someone please explain to me why the lives of 120,000 syrians are more important than the lives of 3.5 congolese were were being killed?