tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 17, 2015 10:00pm-12:01am EDT
to make an evil in moscow, a mafia state is not true. this romance in the 1990s. maybe it was great for poland, i don't know. but when he was forced from office, as he was 75% of russians lived in poverty. they think things were sent to moscow. but they were sent back to the bank of new york. so this romance of the 1990s ruled by a week mafia it's all
putin. think about the real problems in the world. to be clear the russia that we have today to meet the current regime as it is today is a result of our failed policy of engagement. have we isolated and humiliated russia from 1991? no. they received the soviet un seed. they were transferred from ukraine under the budapest memorandum. from the beginning, u.s.
presidents have sought to build up international status. clinton and bush invited them to join the council of europe although it is not a council of micro sea. during that same period while we are engaging russia and inviting them to our institutions and creating russia, what was russia doing western mark he invaded ukraine he built up his military system. last month he held a military exercise involving 80000 troops and 41 ships. earlier this year he conducted in exercise in the baltic. it concluded with a practice run
of nuclear warsaw. incidentally you can't have it open ways. you both ways. you can't say he was wandering his money in western banks and we were isolating him. while we let them use our banking system and while we enriched them, what were they doing? they were re-creating a soviet style nuclear arsenal that they want to use against us. for the first time that is the debate i heard that they could prevent terror. i always believed that it was a criminal regime founded by stalin and others and what they
did in the west was irrelevant. i look here to look at the regime and it was not a perfect democracy. they had great opportunities to turn into a democratic state with normal checks and balance systems. it didn't happen. we avoided the war which could have happened if someone like putin was there. i agree there was massive corruption under boris yeltsin. they were stealing these funds
and convinced yelton that they needed putin to protect them. when we talk about putin's friends, if you're so lucky to share the school or be in a class you are now in the fourth fleet. the country is owned by very few families. ironically it's all these people that are so close to mr. putin. they are fighting for power and mrs. how they fight for survival. he will do every crime to stay in power. [applause]. >> the debate is set in the
table is set so to speak. we speak. we want to get into an exchange with these debaters on a variety of topics with this subject. since you spoke first i want to start with you and pick up on something and set in her comments. a lot of people are wondering about obama's a reset. the degree to which this administration previously attempted to roll back the policies of the bush administration that were seen as exclusionary russia. it led to crime area and the ukraine. >> first of all it did not. secondly the knowledge of russia was so poor that they didn't know how to say the word reset in russia. this did not lead to crimea at all. when were talking about whether or not russia was humiliated this is a perfect example when russia begged not to do it.
that was importance yelton's time. in boris yeltsin's time. they said just shut up. since the un would not condone it, nato did it. they were allowed to leave serbia. why was that possible? why were the russians ignored? that is the kind of humiliation that has led to the greatest anti- american sentiment in russia that i have known. the average russian today is absolutely anti- american and that wasn't the case before. were they anti- bush, anti- reagan, yes but not anti- american. there's a lot of propaganda. >> she said she never heard such a concentrated message of hatred. >> why are you yelling? >> i am russian so i know --
>> russians yell, they drink vodka and dance. they are regular normal people. what people. what i'm saying is this. your mother had her experience. i think i'm older than your mother and i lived in the soviet union. >> i lived on different side of the fence. >> you don't know anything about me. >> the propaganda in russia's very difficult different because it was totally isolated. today it's much more sophisticated and much more dangerous so i'm not saying it isn't, but what i'm saying is -- please don't interrupt, the average russia individual is anti- america. >> what he's saying is the policy of what you want
containments, isolation is stoking the anti- american sediments. >> we created him. our banking systems laundered the money and are tax systems created. stop acting like this is a reaction to our isolation. we created it kept putin on board. we invited him to the meetings and we wanted him to be part of the west. we had this idea that russia is a candidate western country and if for just nice enough, they'll join. what we what we have discovered is it has involved into something quite different. it's not the soviet union.
it's not nazi germany either. these are bad analogies. it's a very new kind of sophisticated propaganda run state. this state. this is a country in which every single television channel and every single newspaper, and every single internet website, with a few tiny exceptions, are controlled by the state in such a way that they appear to be all slightly different. this is not one thing saying something every day, this is a wide spectrum of different media and they all say the same thing in a tabloid, sophisticated, tabloid or news way. they're telling the same stories that putin wants them to hear. the story they been telling is bitterly anti- american and bitterly anti- european. the hatred toward ukraine and americans the use of semi-fascist symbolism and people marching with angered faces. this is something new and different.
no wonder people are anti- american. >> there isn't a partner on the other side to reach across to. >> i'm having a hard time because i thought we agreed i tried to sign a contract with the audience that we would deal with some facts. i read ten russian newspapers a day across the spectrum, and it's true what ms. applebaum said, in at least three of those ten you hear what you want to hear. but there are at least seven that are pro- american and pro- european. what's astonishing to me is that i can learn that these states
launder money offshore. i had no idea such things happened. we know what's going on in the united states because our justice department are bringing suits against corporations for doing this. what i can see is that's a bigger a bigger pressure problem in russia. the way this economic system was formed in the 1990 that system has to be reformed, absolutely. do i think ms. applebaum is right absolutely not. the result will be worse. this is for russians to decide, not for us. what's for us to decide is whether we need a partner in russia, whether it's putin or his successor. i would end with this point i do not ever recall and i've been around a long time, ever hearing people whom ms. applebaum
represent speaking like this personally of a soviet communist leader. in fact when i listen to them i have to say, there is a nostalgia for the soviet union and a vendetta against putin's russia. with whom we cooperated for our security. >> when you were given your first introduction i wrote down opec oppressed soviet union nostalgia. you talked about when it was there and it could help regulate the world. i have no nostalgia for the cold war. half war. half of europe was in slave during the cold war. totalitarian ruled hundreds of millions of people. you have you have this idea that once again if only the u.s. and
russia could work together we could create some stability. this russia is not a country that want stability. they are interested in chaos. they created chaos in ukraine. in fact, who are russia's friends? >> somewhat .2 the recent iran deal. they were agreeing to help iranian. over chemical weapons, how do you respond to those examples of russian cooperation? >> operation means you can make concessions. you do something in your interest to boast the corporation. you can see why those interests, a had been supplying them and it
enhances putin's position in the arena. let's not forget that putin's interest was to keep the pressure and push up the oil prices. as for syria, putin's priority from day one and he succeeded. there are many other reasons for him doing that. one is some form of brotherhood and one is washed away by public anger and arab wealth. it always had a negative effect for people in russia because they could see what was happening. let's not forget putin is always watching the map of the pipeline. that's very important.
potentially syria. [inaudible] he was great beneficiary. >> beneficiary. >> how do you react to that? >> if he is saying that putin stands up for russians interest then i guess he does from a certain viewpoint and his popularity, i read your interview opposite mine in the you newspaper where you kind of laugh at his popularity. you popularity. you know as well as i do the people who did the pole are honest people. these are not government sponsored, it sponsored, it is very respectable organization. it showed that 80% of the russian people support putin. there has to be a reason for that. these are not stupid people. they are people who have lived a
long time and know what propaganda is. what they see in putin is a man who has brought russia back. no longer do russians feel they are in second place, that they're not a great nation, but they been told by others to get out of our face and now were back and if you don't like us we don't care because were back thanks to putin. that's the feeling they have. that's something that has to be understood, good or bad, that is a fact. there's a reason for it and it's not just because it's an autocratic state. when my colleague talks about russian media, he's right there's a lot of media that say things not at all what ms. applebaum was saying. you know very well it says those things.
you have all these media sources that say different things. it is about as different as abc, nbc, and cbs. name one television station. it's exactly the same thing. it's propaganda on both sides. the people here do not read ukrainian newspapers. newspapers. perhaps they do, but russian they don't. they don't know what's happening in russia. >> this is funny, i was there two years ago to receive the honorary man of the year in
ukraine. there you go, man of the year in ukraine. >> let me bring stephen in. >> did you notice he just got checkmated? i understand this fixation on putin. i really do. personally i don't care much about putin. i wish i was going to live long enough to see how his story ends in 20 years and evaluate his role as a leader of russia. i think it's going to be a big debate, the pluses and minuses. i don't know how it's going to come out but that would be an interesting did eight to have here today. let's look at the elephant the room we haven't mentioned. all this embrace thing of russia in the 1990s, all this wonderful things we did for them , but one we also expanding
nato toward their borders? and you say so what. i find out where you live and i park all my military equipment across the street and i say i'm just here for your security and i'm making sure nobody breaks into your house. then i notice you brought a few other folks along and they've got all their military equipment in my backyard to and then you're suddenly over here and don't worry this is for your security to an nato is about democracy and we need democracy. let's be serious, we were warned and warned by the russians that we liked and by the liberals and they were worried about this and came to washington and said you're pushing too far. eventually, wait a minute, don't use up my time eventually, rightly or wrongly, but put
perception is everything in politics, there political elite said the expansion of nato was a way of making sure russia would be forever a subservient state to the rest west. the silver ring was georgia but the brass ring has always been ukraine. they spoke openly. be honest if you think this is a good policy, if you believe we should push our power as close to russia as we can, bring ukraine into the western
security system because it's good for us, then say so and let's debate that issue. let's not go on about the demon putin and the rest because the reality is the russian understanding of what ukraine is about is what nato expansion has been about from the beginning. ukrainian crisis arose because rightly or wrongly russian political class believed that nato was on its way to crimea. we can say it's crazy, but perception is politics and it's everything. you want to be safe in this world, you isolate russia and they're going to pre-perceive us in an even more extreme form and we will never be safe. >> let's go to this rebuttal on nato. >> i'll say it as you invited me, it's crazy. first of all, all, number one why did nato expansion happen? let's take back the clock to the 1990s who did it come from who wanted it? it was essential year p and sue wanted it, and initially not an american idea, it was a european
idea. why did they want it? they wanted it because they were afraid. they were afraid of russia even then. they saw what russia was becoming. very reluctantly the u.s. agreed to expand the security zone so a hundred million people would be able to make a a transition to democracy and begin economic development and grow without fear of invasion, and it worked. it was unbelievably successful. it worked for the central europeans. a hundred million people were safe. a region that had been the source of two world wars were not. >> until 2013 no exercise was
ever conducted in the new member state. in response to the russian objections, most ukraine were openly and definitively denied nato membership in 2008 and that has been repeated ever sense and it is not on the table now. why are you looking at me like that? in 2008 there was a nato meeting and there would be no membership plan plan for ukraine and it has not been on the table and it is not an issue. >> they said something else in that meeting. >> we seem to remember it differently. >> i don't remember it differently. i can't finish a sentence so how can i tell you. they said however nato membership remains open if they qualify. >> it remains open for russia as well.
>> zero and come on. >> while it was invading one neighbor after another the american army was drilling down these forces that by 2013 there was not one tank in europe. this is an aggressive policy? there is no way they putin believed that nato was a threat. this is a threat. this is something he has been using at home as a way to consolidate his power. >> the nato discussion in no way consolidates it at home. it has nothing to do with his power. perception is very important.
let me remind you about what happened in 1962. were you around? well, if around? well, if you weren't in 1962 two independent countries one called the soviet union in one called cuba agreed to have missiles placed on cuban soil. and so the soviets decided good idea to have our missiles closer to the united states. this was the height of the cold war. two countries have the right to make that kind of decision. when the u.s. found out that this was happening it said no you will no you will not do this and if we have to sink your ships, we will sink them. if that's when world war iii happens, it will happen. these are facts.
>> may i -- >> know you may not. that's not how you debate. maybe it is i don't know. rightly or wrongly, the way russia looks at nato and sees it as a threat why was nato created? to protect the west and the european areas. there has been no more soviet union and there hasn't been one for 25 years. this was their answer to nato. mikael gorbachev, who i tend to trust told me three times that
james baker who was then secretary of state told him that if you agree to the unification of germany and taking down the berlin rall, i tell you that nato will not move 1 inch to the east. now you may say he's lying, but i don't think he is. is. i think he's telling the truth and the thing is that during the soviet period which didn't last very long after that, nato did not move to the east. it moved under clinton. when the russians started saying what's going on here he was told no, no we have no agreement with you, we have an agreement with the soviet union but it's no longer there. so in 1991 poland czechoslovakia became members of nato.
it was followed by romania the argument isn't about dates -- i may have gotten a date mistaken but finally nato found itself on russia's border in estonia and in latvia. you may say but there's nothing dangerous about that. i'm telling you this is cold war mentality that nato is seen as a threat. what the russians have set about ukraine, rightly or wrongly, is we will not allow nato to be on our border in the southwest. will not allow. just as american will not allow
the missiles, we will not allow it. you can condone it but that's the reaction. that is how it's seen. [applause]. >> you want to know about russian elite, there is no russian elite. there is one man who makes decision. they know where to put their money their fortunes all the way from the west to miami. that's why the whole idea of the russian elite being afraid of the west is not true because they know they are safe with their fortunes. putin is very popular is something else i hear. i don't want to argue with you about the integrity. yes i agree, i give them full
credit. somebody calls you and says what you think about mr. putin? i'm really proud for mike country that 20% would say they do not like mr. putin. [inaudible] [applause]. we want to live in the 21st century. i hear america, russia russia, america. sometimes germany. what about countries in between? [inaudible] [applause].
i believed they have a right to decide what will happen with that country. it was nearly 16 or 17%. it quadrupled, guess why and it's not just russia, i spoke to people who fought in the east. they are fighting putin's army because they don't believe in this russia. this is the rush i want to see. >> but it's putin again. are we going to have a discussion of what's in the best interest of the west because that really is embedded in the
question, isn't it? should we engage or isolate? or should we have a debate about how are going to get rid of putin? if you want to have that debate, you can bring in the two points of view. miss applebaum wrote a wonderful history and i strongly, if you have an interest in it, you should read it because master historians are at work there. as she knows now comes the however. [laughter] i i understand for one reason or another, she uses this whole saga of nato expansion through the perspex and perspective of central europe. but the stories she told of nato expansion is nowhere written in the histories we now have that have resorted to the archives if you look at the clinton administration and look at other
things, there was tremendous pressure in the u.s. on clinton to go back on the word that had been given to gorbachev that nato wouldn't expand. we know the story. that's the kind of fairytale version that we did it to protect them from russia that was already menacing them but it was broken down in the '90s and we had to save them and we brought democracy along the way, but that isn't a true story. the reality is, there is another debate to be had here, and i'll just drop it and some of you won't even like the question. does the nation have the right to join nato if it technically qualifies for nato membership. it always said that so, but i
disagree. nato is a security organization. it's not the junior commerce. it's not a nonselective sorority or fraternity. it's a security organization and the criteria is does it enhance our sick curate he or not. nato has brought the greatest crisis since the cuban missile crisis. some of those countries to which ms. applebaum mentioned is reconsidering. there are a lot of fundamental questions about whether or not this really enhanced the security of europe. you don't get a debate with opinion you get it with facts.
[inaudible] >> i just want to be conscious of our debate and end with the topic that's on a lot of people's mind and people's mind and i want you to answer it. it's the presence of nuclear weapons in this conversation and the large amount that russia has. people would naturally feel a tendency to come over to the compromise camp on the basis that we just can't get this wrong. we can't risk potential for an escalation that could flow from a policy of isolation towards russia. how do you respond to that? >> first i want to he didn't let me correct him.
but there was an agreement not to move nato to the west. this missile crisis analogy is completely wrong. >> its fear on both sides. >> fear there is. what is the answer to the question. fear and fear of nuclear weapons is very central to this conversation. it actually and explains why we are not more enthusiastic about helping ukraine. why don't we help ukraine? because we are afraid of russia's nuclear arsenal. this is irrational country. it might sell weapons to other countries, we don't know what it will do, it might do something crazy.
the terrence is not an aggressive policy, it is defense. but the terrence arguments is if you bomb us, we will bomb you. it's very unattractive as a policy and most people don't like it. most it's the only policy we know that works and that we are capable of using against putin's russia. whether it's funding the election or the far right in france, this is a country that doesn't want to be part of our system anymore and has made that very clear. what can we do? we can make sure that putin knows that the russian regime
who are they there just rich guys that are his friends. but that's the only word we have to describe him. we want to make sure that group of people knows that we will respond. that's the only thing we can do right now and i'm very sorry that we don't have anything better. this is one of the great tragedies of my life. i've watched this happen and now were back to exactly the place i would have never wanted us to be. [applause]. i think were in a much worse place than we were, frankly. back then there were two ideologies and now there's no ideology in russia. they don't even know what is the
future, what is the future what are we working for? back in those days, whether it was true or not, for our children, there was an ideology. the red scare was about ideology. in this particular case it's no longer ideology it's geopolitics. it's less predictable. another thing happened which is very interesting. there used to be real fear of nuclear weapons, children hiding under desks, movies like the day after. today after. today people aren't even talking about nuclear weapons. it's as if they weren't there. i think it's very dangerous that they're not aware. they're not present the way they
used to be and i think that's a bad thing. >> i wish nobody would talk about nuclear weapons but russian television have been talking about it. what about the billboards? >> that's one person saying that come on. >> yes that's one person saying it with a hundred million people watching. putin publicly said he would use nukes in crimea. >> he did not say that. they talked about going on high alert. let's be precise here. he did not say that.
so when some idiot says -- >> he keeps talking about it. >> the guy who said it was on television and we heard him say so it's not putin. if you want to talk about reality, listen to rush limbaugh on american television and say look what the americans are saying. this is a jerk, excuse me, saying what he is saying.
it's not a russian a russian policy and it's not an american policy. it's separate people and let's make that clear. >> all give you the final say on this important point on how nuclear weapons flow into the discussion of engagement or isolation. >> both of them talk of nuclear weapons as reemerged. not in the same way as we were conscious of them in the past but the discussion has reemerged. ms. applebaum wrote a column lately i don't think she put a head on it, but it should rattle the discussion of nuclear weapons. when people start talking about that i think we know were in dangerous territory. i would go even farther and i would say we are in a new cold war by whatever name and it's potentially more dangerous than the last one. this is where the nuclear weapons come in. for several reasons it's more
dangerous. this one is in ukraine right on russia's borders. secondly, and this is what really worries me, during the last cold year cold war they came up with a series of rules of conduct. this happened over 40 years. there are no rules of conduct yet and that's why anything can happen. a third reason is there's no opposition to it in the united states and there was
a lot of opposition before, but you will remember that one of the great achievements of reagan and gorbachev was to eliminate it. the only time a category of nuclear weapons had been eliminated was 1987 1987 if i'm not mistaken. that was an enormous achievement. it made everybody safer. those missiles don't need four or five minutes to proceed whether it's a seagull or a a seagull or a missile coming in. there were a lot of recorded misperceptions on these systems. both sides, not one side, both sides are talking about reentered do sing intermediate range missiles. the russians are talking about putting them in crimea. the united states is talking about putting them back in western europe. that's how dangerous it is. my two opponents really hate putin do you really want to go there? >> were going to go to closing statements. let's have gary up first.
you have three minutes. >> i want to talk about val demure putin again. even if you have ten wars you can make more decisions than one man. for putin there is no way out. he presents himself as a strong man who can protect his country. i said from the very beginning i'm a russian patriot and want to see my country free and strong. i want to see them play a productive role. i don't want them to be the same joke.
this is not the image of rush i want to project. it's hard for for me to argue for isolation but this is not an isolation of russia. it's like a mafia boss. it's the ring leader and he keeps power not because he's elected or not because he has some birthright of the monarch but because he protects everybody, because he's invincible because nobody can go after him. as long as he keeps this image as a strong man, he prevails. every time the free world makes a concession, he is getting more arrogant. he will move further past ukraine. he needs muddy waters. it's all about domestic politics
because he has nothing else to offer, no more trump cards but foreign-policy expansion. talking about isolation, i do remember when i was a kid i read the stories, there is a big debate in the u.s. senate about the amendment that put together the free trade in the suit soviet union. there is bipartisan support. the man who was my role model but ended up in exile and he stood up for isolation which was a way to weaken the regime. they should understand in
audible. [inaudible] they will think not about putin's russia but about the future of my great country. thank you. [applause]. >> i was beginning with a lighthearted remark saying that it would be really fun to see them go after each other alone and actually it was in early march where russians had this conversation and representatives of both sides were there. when they said that he thought he would be on his side today i suddenly felt disappointed. something should be sacred.
sakharov would not have supported the isolation of russia. everything he wrote was we must engage in these issues. you need to go back and read. worshiping someone without reading is not the way to go. same thing about putin. i have not come here to be pro- putin. i have no sentimental attachments of putin whatsoever. he's a subject of study. i think if you would read what he actually says and read his speech about the next crime area, they have driven us in a corner and we have nowhere to retreat to.
what you mean how did we drive you in a corner? he's talking about nato and the encroachment on ukraine. i come back to this issue, to isolate is to exacerbate those distorted perceptions of us, if you think they're distorted. let me end by turning to an astonishing thing that ms. applebaum said. she said and i tried to write it down putin's russia does not want to be part of our system any longer. i think she said that. it's a strange statement because, first of all and i promise you this and you can go to it in english and read every major speech putin has given. he is on his knees pleading to be part of the west and lamenting that he's been driven to the west. don't west. don't put your hands up gary, i would not come here and lie to you. read his last six or seven speeches on the ukrainian crisis.
there is one other thing, russia was never part of our system. i said facts not opinion. the fact is, and ms. applebaum admitted this, nato expansion excluded russia from the post soviet union of security. they were security. they were included. how could they want to be part of a system they were not made a part of. [applause]. >> ladies and gentlemen, it's no doubt it has been a very confusing evening. you have just heard two radical accounts of russia. you have heard on one side russia is a little bit difficult, i don't want to support it, i'm not pro- putin
that it's the kind of state we need to speak to and engage with and talk with. it's very important that we are reasonable with them so we can continue to divide up the world the way we once did 25 years ago. on our side you've heard an argument that this is actually a different kind of nation. this is a nation that speaks differently where the reason we keep talking about putin and his cronies as were searching for words, is because these are owner occupiers. these are not just politicians they own gas prom. they are the leaders of the country. they use their businesses and media inside their country inside ukraine and inside central europe and all over the west west to achieve their own and. what are their and? their answer to remain in power. whatever it is that putin does,
his ultimate goal is to stay in power. whether it's build up his nuclear arsenal or carry out military exercises or claim that militia planes were shut down by martians, the ideas always about maintaining his power. were forced to talk about him because he is so dominant. what you haven't heard from any of us much tonight and certainly not from our opponents is much about the people who have been the most important victims of the west policies of engagement until now. these are the young and energized ukrainians who stood in the cold last year in order to fight putin's style of corruption and dictatorship. these men and women -- [applause].
these men and women have in the past 18 months created new television stations from scratch. they have run for parliament and one on anticorruption tickets. they have set up organizations designed to promote transparency and good government. they may not succeed they have extraordinary obstacles to overcome and they will not succeed but their goal is to create a more fair, more democratic 21st-century and putin is trying to stop them. i repeat, ukraine is not putin's only target. he also wants to corrupt our societies & persuade other people to come to the fascist far right. to stop him from destroying ukraine, we need to address them in this sense. disentangle ourselves from the drug of russian money and reestablish
the russian solidarity which he is trying to destroy. [applause]. >> you have the last word. >> thank you. i refuse to play this game about who he is not. i care about russia. what are the consequent lenses of isolating russia. i think there are ten. the dream of bringing down the iron curtain again. it reinforces a feeling by 73% of all russians that the west west, led by the united states is the enemy, fourth it turns russia eastward with china.
that's a partnership that is dangerous and threatening to the west. fifth, and makes russia evermore unpredictable. six unpredictable. six that played into the hands of russia's military contacts. seven it reinforces the traditional desire to circle the wagons and deal with the hostile environment. eight, it minimizes any and all outside information for the russian people who do have access to western media and movies and the internet. nine it cuts off travel for all average citizen, including tourism and education. tenet leads to the birth of a generation of russians hostile to the west. what are the consequences of engaging russia? by engaging russia? by engaging russia, and by this i mean opening its doors to as many russians as possible, easing the visa restrictions allowing them to visit and work and send their kids to
universities. the west will bring change in people's mindset. this will change the country, country, it's politics and its policies. it will not happen overnight but it will inevitably happen and this beyond a question of a doubt, will be huge for the west. by west. by the same token, for russia and for the russian people. finally, i'd like to say that if as ms. applebaum once wrote in this magazine, the russian president dreams of setting down a new iron curtain, this is her article, then isolating russia is playing right into putin's hand. thank you very much. :
>> 53%. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. 54% agreed, 46% disagree. so it's very close. and we asked how many would be open to changing your mind and we had big numbers there in terms of views 89%. this debate is very much up for grabs and all of you have a second balance in your program please use that to vote on the way out and we are going to have the results for you and the reception a little bit after 9:00 p.m. again, thank you all, thank you all 3000 of you for showing up for the vote. >> on the next "washington journal" this man discusses the army effort to improve soldier morale. and then president of friends of the earth and how americans view
earth day 45 years after it was first celebrated in 1970. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is live on c-span. >> saturday morning, live all-day coverage of the new hampshire republican party. this includes ted cruz and wisconsin governor scott walker, john kasich and kentucky senator rand paul. booktv is live from the university of southern california.
>> some of the authors include the following. live coverage of the "l.a. times" festival of books continues sunday after night at 2:00 o'clock in on c-span3 at 8:45 a.m. eastern, for an all-day event come and join us for the end of the civil war. the 150th anniversary of president lincoln's assassination with a ceremony at lincoln's cottage and re-creations from ford's theater. get our complete schedule and keep them out of order.
>> next the vice minister minister of finance discusses the impact of his country's economy on the asia pacific region and the united states. this event is hosted by the atlantic council runs about an hour. >> good afternoon everyone, i'm john jon huntsman. thank you for joining us to hear china's vice minister of finance speak about his country's vision for a more prosperous asia-pacific region. thank you so much for being with us. this is part of the council's project on shaping the asia pacific future.
we have the secretary of u.s. treasury department and former special envoy on china. the project is currently on phase one which focuses on the economic and financial architecture and this includes the asian infrastructure and infrastructure bank and the new development bank and the silk road initiative showing strong momentum. and this includes under increasing scrutiny. this includes the investment and financial architecture.
the international organization continues to expand in the upload chinese capital into foreign markets which is rising we have efforts to strengthen the economy face a new challenge. and there are great opportunities to pursue common interest and also serious potential risks of fragmentation and we are delighted to have the vice minister with us to provide his perspective on these very important elements. the financial institutions in china's long-term vision. he was appointed to his current position in may of 2010 following a very distinguished career at the ministry of
finance including china's director of the world bank and director general of the department and assist in minister. in this includes as we prepare to host the g20. i would like to invite the vice minister to the stage with his remarks and then we will have a q&a session moderated. the time is now yours, sir. [applause] >> hello, i am here to promote
this end i have been here trying my best to boost relations. [inaudible] and i am so happy to meet old and new friends. i would like to name them [inaudible] the professor is also here and you have contributed to this. today i'm really honored to be here at the atlantic council to talk about the ambassador [inaudible]
and [inaudible] and indeed we have talked about the challenge and we have a great chance the united states has more than 300 million people in china [inaudible] china has 1.3 billion people in that country -- just as we have talked about with president obama and that is enough to accommodate the two countries.
and china holds less [inaudible] in treasury bonds. but our organization supports interconnected relations. this includes china and the economic bill. and this includes the element that may contribute to another side because he was so connected to our two countries. and it is a very important flower that is continuing
[inaudible] and so projects [inaudible] including what goes on in the department here. we have done the best we can to implement this in china and most of the successful projects as well. not only that china has become an amazing country. [inaudible] china contributes to the group and they have increased the
amount. we have domestic priorities and we have this international ability to increase this to the group. and that includes how we hope that everything will contribute to the global poverty reduction program. not only largely reduced best and this process china is the moral integrity with the global system.
[inaudible] that includes using this [inaudible] we have a great deal of proposals including beijing this on prosperity especially to asian members. [inaudible] he made this barricade in beijing [inaudible] and this has had 83-point an interesting effect on a proposal to it. and fortunately we are doing our best to emphasize. we must make a correct deal and
promote growth. and underneath we have a strong and solid fabric to achieve the goal. >> if you must reach, you must force this road. that is a very simple and import in fact that is a part of the whole development of the fact. and that is something that we develop infrastructure to boost the economy.
members of this they are working together to contribute to improve and enhance theirs. they strongly urge congress to be approved [inaudible] and also damaged was the image of the united states. i strongly hope that the u.s. congress can discuss a proposal including that internal debate. [inaudible]
you have indicated in your remarks a very strong commitment to the existing international system. you have also said that the newest thing china has proposed are complementary to that. is this about the adjustment that's required in recognition of china's rising status? is this about the mobilization of sources? is it about inefficient and slow institutions in responding? is it about representation for a
larger voice at the table not just for china? or is there something more than that? is there here a set of chinese norms or rules or principles that you are seeking to establish for the existing architecture. help us understand the distinction between process and underlying values. >> i understand that concern. i want to emphasize.
they should reach the policy target so that's the thinking. in generally we hope the mandate is the real law of law and to use the policy to decide and learn from the real practice to reflect the valid. >> those are high aspirations. i'm struck by the language you use and in many many ways its similarity to the kind of standards the values and operation that exist existing
lenders use. institutions are obviously impacted by a lot of externalities. you made mention to a nuns necessity to incorporate high standards to protect the environment, population dislocation, interest groups and outside interests groups of these areas have had a significant impact on the ability of existing institutions to lend to infrastructure projects. you referenced also the discipline of the market. the the ability to take project to the market and fund them in addition with private capital, that obviously is another strength that impacts -- how do you think operationally about
the bank to deal with these kinds of outside realities? i hear the standards you articulate. some have said and i'd be interested in your reaction to this, if they want to become successful it really has to look a lot like the existing multilateral lending institutions. set certainly the underlying standards rules, modes of operation are similar. >> we say similar, but this bank has infrastructure.
[inaudible] they are in sync. that is a real complementary role. >> if i could turn to the audience now and will start with this lady here and then go up here and i'll get some of the others that raised their hand. if you could state your name and your affiliation. >> regarding that i wondered if the chinese are accepted as being a member and i wondered are you aware of any reason why they cannot be a perspective funding member?
>> we are very happy and we hope that people think we should be working together to develop this piece. we want to have the chinese joined the stable environment and the economic development. regarding her question the third principle is open and inclusive. the region economists. [inaudible] both sides across the street are
question about yesterday's meeting. you had a meeting with your counterparts of the united states and the euro. what are the issues you discussed and have you reached any consensus? were they part of the discussion with united states and japan show their intention to join? >> we had a meeting. did you get this information publicly or privately? >> privately. >> yes that's the thinking that there is an opportunity for many countries.
the u.s. china will continue to have information. [inaudible] so i think something was already described by in this hearing. >> just a comment if a comment if i could, very quickly. we may be seeing as i think some of your comments indicated and i sense we've exhausted the impact you mention the impact of fiscal, as a comment just very quickly, structural reform within economies is a theme
focus of your presidency next year in the context of the g20. it is different in each of our countries and it is very profound. >> it will become more important >> we've exhausted monetary and fiscal, personally. matthew your question. >> thank you first you first of all i agree the structural form is very important. i wanted to ask two questions about the governance. if the united states or japan or taiwan were to join in the future, how would the capital shares of those countries be
handled? especially with big countries like the u.s. and japan it could change the allocation of shares. the second question is about your plans for a resident board or decision not to have a resident board in beijing. can you explain the rationality? >> the u.s. is different from the japan law. the economy of japan is inside asia so according to. [inaudible]
made a speech and talked a lot about the it and the initial investment. you also mention that chat china will not challenge the leadership of the united states. you mention that the negative list would be proposed in the early month but we didn't see that happen. can we expect that it can be reached before or when they come to have a visit? you mentioned china. [inaudible] do you think the reaction and