tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 5, 2015 10:00pm-12:01am EDT
linked into current events. if reagan, by the way something we haven't gotten into his detail on how to think about the future of ukraine brewery have different points of view. in terms of thinking how we handle you can't -- ukraine crisis and what kind of security strategy we think about to the extent we can steer the russians towards a reagan model i think there's utility for that. that's a different conversation for a different day. my last comment however is on afghanistan and i don't think that we are trying to encourage our enemy to move northward and ultimately put pressure on the russian or parts of the soviet union. what we saw in kunduz and by the way quite the tragedy and there have been a lot of them in last week including most recently the hospital bombing. that's something i've criticized and the tragic loss of 10 americans and jalalabad of the
c-130 crash. despite that we are seeing the afghan start to take back a good chunk of kunduz so don't give up yet. there's room to be at least hopeful here because this is not another mosul. there has been an immediate counterattack in there some reason to believe that's partially successful but kunduz fell on the first place because of local politics. politics in kunduz were a mass and my colleague is there right now in afghanistan and i'm sure she will write about this when she's back to she's been warning for a long time, she knows condi is better than i i do and this is a region where there has been a lot of militia actors competing for influence in ways that strengthen the overall government. a historic karchi creation is roughly a third bashed in the group from which they are said to hill. as a population base and if
there started cherlin mischief it's a clever way of using force we should respect the taliban military decision-making. i am hopeful that they have gotten more than they more than they reckon with in the afghan army or police are going to do a better job than i counted on so i remain hopeful on that front. i think we have time for one final question which will use as a way to wrap up. the gentleman in the blue shirt lease. just one question please. >> i would like to go back to mr. sub three's comment on ukraine and link, i want to ask if the u.s. and the european union decided to provide massive economic assistance to ukraine no military assistance but in support of reforms in the e.u. also made sure that e.u. membership or ukraine is far in the future and not something
that is likely to occur sand. how would that affect russia today? would it make them feel more besieged? >> to be there if you want to start back? >> i think it's an interesting question because it gets to water. subject is in ukraine? the kremlin did not have a grand strategy. a lot of this is making it up as he goes. crimea and the aftermath of yanukovich leaving and the appointment of a new government as is a target of opportunity but i don't think it lays all this out. you do not have a russian interest in acquiring that territory. here's there's a brief period where they talked about the southern 40% of ukraine breaking away. they quickly became disabused of
that notion when they saw there was no public support in ukraine. so what the russians have been doing is using it as a way to destabilize the government and make it harder for the government to succeed. the question is could you get the russians to change that decision and in terms of the objectives that moscow articulates a year ago he could have seen the basis for a win-win solution. poroshenko was talking about power and talking about status to russian line which. he said, he wasn't saying no nato ever but he was prepared to take off the table and he said we are prepared to have a dialogue and talk about how do you ensure russia doesn't have a negative impact on ukrainian russian economic relations. there was no interest shown by
the kremlin a year and half ago picking up on that. and that leads me to conclude that the russians again destabilization and i don't know we have seen a change today. certainly the good thing out of eastern ukraine is a sense of timbr there has been a real cease-fire and maybe we will see in the next 100 days whether withdrawing heavy equipment what that will do. there is reason for skepticism. one of the things that's been talked about when putin and poroshenko were in paris on friday was this question of local elections. the two agreements a local elections will be held in accordance with ukrainian law and have the occupation authorities standing up on their own elections. now there were some hope the french president would say we hope we can postpone the elections but we think we can
achieve it as per the accordance with ukrainian law with the observers and president putin spokesman went out and said well yeah president putin is going to send an envoy because he wants to talk about this. that's just the refuge. if russia wanted the election to be held in accordance with ukrainian law russia has the way, the influence and the power to me could happen immediately. and so my guess is we are still seeing the russians goal which is destabilization of ukraine. maybe they are less focused on military and maybe at this point they don't need it but i'm not sure we have seen a change in russian objectives. my last point would be because of what happened over the course of the last year and a half and the hardening of public opinion in ukraine to things like we want to join nato that may
create a difficulty in president poroshenko in terms that might allow a win-win solution. it's probably closer than i was 16 or 17 months ago. >> steve is such an expert on ukraine and i'm not on the 11 hand that question is so hypothetical i don't even know that i can begin to answer. the idea that there would be massive amounts of economic assistance from the e.u. and from the united states and ukraine is so remote that i just don't know. think about it. there's no way they are we are going to do that. let's assume that it happens or it was a real possibility. i don't think putin the economic stability of ukraine is any particular threat. the military and the political threat and the eastern ukraine
situation is where the heart of it is but the russians have plenty of lovers to destabilize ukraine economically that they haven't used. but that's not really in their interest that they will be employed if they think that's necessary to prevent a literal threat that ukraine might join nato or sanctioning of missiles in ukraine that they would regard as a threat. >> i will say one last parting conclusion this will have to be at which is that i would like to hope that we can increase the odds of a minimalist or pro-western russia with some kind of dig new idea on european architectures and again there's disagreement on the panel here. not everybody would agree with this but i would like to see along with russia they guarantee
the sovereignty and security of sensual europe as part of the deal by which those countries would not join nato, not now and not in the future and this would be conditional on russia verifiably upholding its end of the bargain and i would like to see that kind of an idea considered. i think the chances are that it might increase the odds of a more benign russia that we write about in our article but obviously i'm risking provoking a new conversation just as we are about to finish up so i will stop there. thank you all very much for being here. [applause]
arizona and roe v. wade. landmark cases, the book written by veteran supreme court journalist tony mauro features introductions, background highlights and impacts of each case published by c-span in cooperation with cq press an imprint of sage publications incorporated. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping. get your copy today at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> united states in 11 nations including canada japan and australia agree to the transpacific partnership agreement. the largest trade agreement history. the agreement will be debated in each of the nations including the u.s. congress before it's finalized. u.s.. back representative michael sub or discuss the logistics of agreement this summer at "the wall street journal" cfo
conference. this is 25 minutes. >> thank you. we have a lot of trade negotiators on the stage. we should all get some action. we should have a negotiation session the best strategy is for that. ambassador froman this has been quite a remarkable day in the evolution of the latest trade pact. let's assume for the moment so we don't get into the politics of this which we have been discussing a fair amount so far today that tpa, the transpacific hardship gets to a vote. what does this trade deal hold in store for these companies in the room? an opportunity for them and what also might be new competition that they have to be concerned about that my results in a trade
deal? >> starting from the premise that our market is already an open market. we have an average in the u.s. of 1.4%. 70% of our imports come in come in duty free actually 80% come in duty free from the tpp region we don't use regulations. we are already competing in the global economy. we are competing against other markets and lower labor standards and we are trying to do these trade agreements first disproportionately reduce the barriers we face with our exports. the average high tariff in the country as three or four times as high as ours. 70% on autos, 50% on machinery, 50% on beef. these are all going to go to zero or lower than they are now and that will create more opportunities for american firms and american workers to be able
to compete and to export products abroad. at the same time we are using a trade agreement to raise standards in other countries whether its it's putting disciplines on state-owned enterprises so they compete with our private firms and have the benefit of being a state-owned enterprise but that might involve a commercial basis. if they don't. >> they can't be subsidized by the government. >> they can't use those subsidies to have an adverse impact on our private firms whether it's in their country or our country. >> is there a way to track that and we will know what vietnam is doing? >> we are engaged in that and they are using tpp to drive a lot of transparency requirements and using our settlement mechanisms will we will be able to hold other countries that account -- to account. for firms in the u.s. and firm as bradley defined is one of the great benefits is a small
business that find the negotiating of different customs procedures border procedures care for james nontariff regimes bewildering and if we are able to get rid of those and create transference around the remainder makes it easier for 98% of the firms over thune 75,000 firms that are exporting to increase their exports and to bring more into the global economy. >> there are a lot of elements to this. state-owned enterprises is one and you mentioned property rights protections. how's that going to work with how does the company lose technology overseas and not have her ripped off? >> we have a whole series of disciplines that first and foremost to the enforcement of intellectual property rights. for countries to have laws and enforce those laws to protect
trademark as appropriate. we have a mechanism for ensuring whether it's in the creative industries, people walking into movie theaters and recording a movie on their camcorder and selling it immediately on the internet. we have god rules against downloading illegal material from data mines or from cable. we have got rules to make sure the digital environment is the first trade agreement to deal with the digital agreement to make sure it's a free and open internet and data can flow across borders freely. >> you can have your service based in singapore and you don't have to move your business from the u.s. to one of these markets you can put -- right now one of the great threats to the global economy in the 21st century
global economy is the balkanization of the internet and the efforts to use digital protectionism and tpp puts a major stake in the ground about keeping the internet open and free. >> you are a back-and-forth to china. you have a lot of clients in the business in china. china is not part of the tpp. is that a problem? >> there are are a couple of aspects to that. one is that china is a major player in the asian region. the center of most supply chains in asia so i think with tpp companies need to think about rationalizing pricing potentially reorganizing their supply chain we can talk more about that later but china is absolutely critical in that respect. it's also the major trading partner of almost every one of the tpp countries in excess of the united states, in excess of other countries around the world. one of the questions is how to
reconcile tpp with china not in the tpp but such a major force in the region and it seems to me there are a couple of different things to think about in that regard. one is eventually china joining the tpp. that obviously could only happen if it comes up to the high disciplines in the tpp that mike and his team have set up. another is for the united states and china to agree on certain modifications of china's current regime to make it over time more compatible with tpp standards. a third is to take the agreements that china is an nhl which the u.s. is not an which includes a variety of agreements with the asean countries as well as the new agreement stating they go shaded now an initial
rcp and decide over time those agreements ought to either merge with tpp or find some means of harmonization or accommodation between the two, to better rationalize if you will the asian region. i think the thing we want to be careful not to see is a nation that's divided into trading blocks one headed by the u.s., one headed by china and the reason i think we want to be careful not to see that in the longer-run is countries in the region are asked to choose as unfortunately the u.s. set up in part with respect to the asian investment bank the answer will not be favorable to the united states so i think it's going to be very important to ultimately find a way for china to work with this agreement, disagreement to work with china
using some of the mechanisms. >> china presumably is back channeling a little bit to try to influence these negotiations. as china prepared anytime in the near future to make the kinds of concessions that you are talking about where talking about restrictions on state-owned enterprises, intellectual property rights protections that china might find onerous and an inhibitor to its economic growth? >> i don't think china is close now but i do think as it restructures its own economy to move increasingly from investment led economy to an economy that is more balanced toward domestic growth for example and services trade china might find it in its interest at least in part to deal with the
tpp countries on an http basis. those are the decisions china will have to make. they are going to be made soon in my view but it's not impossible that china would begin to move up the scale if you will of these kinds of agreements. when we did the china and wto deal it was inconceivable that china would have made the agreements and restructure the entirety of its economy the way it did before it did. >> they couldn't than the expectations and they tpp during the wto expectations. >> no, but of course china was a command-and-control economy of very small and a minor contributor to overall local -- global growth at the time. all i'm saying is when china decides to move in a positive
direction it can do so quickly. it has a way of driving consensus fairly quickly even though consensus is still needed an overtime i think we may see them move in a more positive direction. right now the direction of china with respect to multinationals is actually quite negative and more hostile today than it was even five years ago. >> a lot of democrats and a lot of unions say this is a job killer. this is just my more open door for jobs outmigration united states. we are thinking about wage stagnation some united states over the last 15 or 20 years this kind of agreement is what has facilitated that stagnation that will create more stagnation and job loss? what do you answer? >> we are already competing as an open economy in the global economy. we know that every billion
dollars additional export supports between 5,007,000 jobs in those jobs pay up to 18% for export related jobs in the same sector in terms of investing more in their r&d and their productivity, they hire more so we do this as a way of creating more jobs and creating better jobs, higher paying jobs. the foreign commerce has done a study which shows as you reduce other countries tariffs it has a positive effect on wages here. it varies anywhere from 1% to 12% higher wages as tariffs abroad come down so we see this very much as being supportive of what the president calls middle-class economics and that was very much to creating more jobs and making sure they are high-paying jobs. >> i would suggest that if there is equalization or tariffs come down in vietnam or here that we are to have low tariffs on the
light light manufactured and i haven't outsourced to china maybe i would consider vietnam now. in other words i will send my jobs over there, will wait, low labor costs, manufactured and shipped the product that's united states. that's not going to happen? >> because we are so open this creates a tendency to keep jobs here and vietnam is a fast-growing economy. they will need greater nutrition higher agricultural products. they are going to need services and to provide them from here to these economies around the world. >> currency manipulation has come up in the discussion. the auto industry particularly says wait a second why are we negotiating those whom we have a japan that striving at the end down and making exports cheaper in dollar terms and bob shanks from ford.
they can articulate it better than i can. can we get a microfound or maybe they could just stand up and tell us what the concern is. >> it's interesting for me go back and look at our particular industry we are up against a number of competitors around the world. japan is obviously one of the largest in the economy and it has used as a tool and nontariff tool since world war ii which we have turned a blind eye to currency manipulation. over the last number of years they have done that over 370 times. we think we can address ip. we think we can address labor standards. we think we can address environmental standards and probably for strategic reasons we choose not to address currency manipulation and that creates a very unfair playing
field for a company like ours and others and if something that this is an opportunity to address and we choose not to do so and it is a choice. there are people such as senator portman who sat in your chair who believes in fact that it can be address of or others in government who believe there are ways that this can be addressed and we can put a stake in the ground particularly if down the road china were to enter tpp as well. it's unfortunate the administration chooses not to do that but the reality is this is one of the most serious tools of nontariff barriers that are used by economy such as japan and that puts us at a competitive advantage. >> i would completely agree on how serious this is an issue and we are doing things about it and backed as you know take china as an example. we have been pressing china from day one from the president on down to move towards more market exchange rates.
we have been doing it bilaterally and starting june 2010 they allow their currency to move-in and smooth 30% in real terms against the dollar. not far enough, not fast enough but we have seen real progress there. japan is a more interesting case because of course they are not intervening in the currency and the way that other countries have. they have expanded their monetary base and closer to quantitative easing than our federal federal reserve is so we believe it's important issue and we think it's important to deal with bilaterally. we also think one should be quite reluctant to have binding and enforceable provisions on your monetary policy when in our few currency manipulation might be the kind of one-sided intervention that you pointed out and in the other countries point of view it might be quantitative easing that expands the monetary base and has an effect on relative currency values. >> we certainly wouldn't want to
put our federal reserve subject to binding enforceable trade sanctions. as you know we have had this ongoing dialogue and we take this extremely seriously dealing with china and other countries that oppress us towards more market exchange rates and we are pleased that the senate and the house have passed provisions to give us more teeth on currency that would allow the treasury secretary to refine currency manipulation to be able to take more specific action against those countries and create a reason for countries not to manipulate. >> ambassador if you raise the issue of china being the marshek department to a lot of issue partners said they came down to it and they had to choose it made not look good for united states and this is an argument
that ambassador froman ante up obama administration has said that either you leave for someone else is going to leave but there's another argument which is that china is good at going to the country and saying we will invest in infrastructure particularly a road that mean support for our goods to get to shanghai but the software of trade the standard setting, the regulation setting and the hard work for the ustr is doing, that's something that china is not good at and these trading partners recognized united states really is the premier partner are we doing a little fear-mongering than the obama administration says if you don't pass the tpp china's going to take the lead? >> first of all it seems to me that tpp is important because it's in the u.s. interest to have influence on relative --
relevance in asia. the fastest growing region in the world and the wealthiest region in the world. we have strong alliances. where bound militarily to asia so the last thing we would want to see happen is a reduction in u.s. imports, a reduction in the agenda setting powers of united states and an inability of the united states to lead and to assist in the reform of asian economies and a way that's compatible with u.s. interests. these are things we must pursue, actually must pursue sub .1 is tpp as an agreement is critical for all of those things to come to pass. put aside china. tpp is critical for our conditioning in asia in a strategic way, and an economic way in an agenda setting way, in a leadership way. and given our security alliances with asia we ought to do
everything we can to ensure that their region is stable and prosperous, good for them and good for united states. if you add time into the equation who ginsing has prohibited an objective of power and a strategic -- we did not see with his predecessor at all. this is noteworthy in asia in particular. where xi's u.s.-china ought to be at the center of asian trade and commerce, it ought to be at the center of a strategic asia and the definition of asia is not merely the tpp a show that we think of it by the nation that extends to the russian border and extends to greece and the mediterranean and it goes
down underneath china to come back around again. this is a very expansive view. the united states obviously has a series of interest in these very regions and areas one of which of course is militarily but the other is economics and in the face of the rise of the major power attempting to redefine the nature of the relationships and the strategic direction of a region and it's a very big region, the united states has every interest in ensuring that we are is anchored as possible and tpp therefore it is critical in that regard as well. >> i would like to add to that. the rest of the world is not standing still. australia has negotiated in the last year or year and a half of china, korea, japan.
china's negotiating with korea and japan in the e.u. is negotiating with vietnam and japan. the rest of the world is moving on and to go to charlene's point we where either they are showing leadership helping define the rules of the road or the rules of the road are not going to reflect our edges and their values and it's got to be better for our workers and our firms if we are the ones of the table hoping to define the rules of the road rather than leaving that leadership role to someone else and someone else doesn't necessarily put the emphasis on protecting intellectual property and maintaining an open for internet making sure the level playing field when it comes to labor and environment. those are our values and interests. >> i want to go to questions and if there are getting i'm just going to continue. questions? signal me if you want to ask
ambassador frommer or ambassador barshefsky something. we have a little bit of a test case in south korea. we have a new fta in the last couple of years. are there lessons that you can draw from that might be reassuring to mr. shanks or to labor movement about job migration if colombia and panama are part of that fta are small by comparison to what the tpp represents. tpp represents 40% of gdp but are there lessons that are encouraging that he could share? >> i think so and of course it's always a work in progress and there's needs to be political as nation to see the impact that take autos because there's an area of controversy around korea. it was a very close to market to begin with. our share there was extremely
small and it's still early days but in the first three years of the agreement sales were up 140%. now we are selling a billion dollars from the u.s. and to create because it's a large export. korea shares down to 4.6%. we are selling many more cars here. we buy 60 million cars a year in this country and they buy 69 cars a year in their country and it's still early days but we are seeing progress there. if you look hard byproduct by product i think we see as turks come down and tears come down we are able to compete well in that market. those two huge emphasis on full implementation. we need to hold our trading partners feet to the fire to make sure that what they agree to is implemented. >> coming back to that i don't
know of any major industry the government -- that doesn't recognize you need to be near your customers. the auto industry in the u.s. is a good example. our automakers have operations in many countries in the world including in asia. in the case of gm as you know these are massive operations. they are manufacturing operations. i think we have to be careful when we use the term like job migration which would imply every job in the auto sector should have been in the united states. i don't know of any such or that operates on that basis and i don't know any sectors that operate on the basis and so if we talk about, the way i think about jobs is the following. that what you want to do is to first of all shifted shift the locus of job creation to higher-paying jobs.
exports are notoriously good at doing this because jobs associated with the export sector pay 13 to 18% more than jobs not associated with the export sector. i'm not talking about the number of jobs. i'm talking about shifting the locus of jobs to higher value-added occupations and that's good for the united states. with respect to the number of jobs than one has to consider a lot of fact chairs. you need fewer people to make what use to make it so that's one factor. technology is an enormous hit on jobs. the trade component of job loss relative to those is very small. i'm not saying it doesn't happen
and it is challenged in this way the has been behind taa and other programs to assist in job training programs but my only point is that when we talk about wholesale job migration this is not a trans that we see. >> that was my phrase. i'm guilty of it. petry at brandeis university estimated that tpp will add about 410 of a% to u.s. gdp by 2025. this is fairly substantial. as i work a number and you find out about right? >> there are various studies done on tpp and once completed you can analyze the terror
productions but that's probably the leading study out there and you're right $73 billion a year which an 8 trillion-dollar economy is not revolutionary but $73 million is also not trump change. >> on the next "washington journal" to get an update on the transpacific trade transpacific trade d'alemberte stands in congress. energy secretary ernest moniz is on capitol hill tuesday to testify before the senate energy and natural resources committee.
members are considering the modernization of the strategic petroleum reserve and exporting of domestic oil. next a look at terrorism in russia and their current strategy to defeat isis. the national defense university associate professor elena pokalova spoke at the wilson center for an hour. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. thank you so much for joining us. i'm the director at the cannon institute and i'm very pleased to be able to introduce elena pokalova this morning. before i do though a couple of housekeeping reminders. tomorrow tuesday october 6 at 9:00 a.m. we are going to have an event which we are doing jointly called the future of europe's eastern policy chances and challenges and this is a report on a project with the system supporter called europe and the east in 2030 so it's examining different trajectories for europe's possible engagement with the neighborhood which so
far has been anonymously successful so clearly that will be a celebration. it's going to be an expert panel discussing these potential scenarios and reporting on the product of this project. thursday this week october 8 at 9:30 we have an event called assessing the state of the russian media and this is a great opportunity when we happen to have three big meetings in the world of reporting in russia and about russia so we wanted to make absolute certain to get them altogether for discussion of the state of the russian media. adam cullison who was the moscow correspondent and a special investigative correspondent. a really good group of journalists in anchorage you to join us on thursday morning. without further ado that may
start today's event, russia's war against terror at the north caucasus and beyond. we do have copies for sale out front and she will inscribe it for you and write a conference a plan for dealing with terrorism on the front cover. i'm kidding. that's chapter 3. elena is associate professor of international security studies and this college of security affairs at the national defense university. her publications including the latest book have appeared far and wide including journalism on terrorism critical studies on terrorism studies on conflicts and terrorism and journal of -- studies. her ph.d. is in political science from kent state university where she wrote a
dissertation on russia's war on terror and she has extensive experience working in russia including working on legislative products so without any further ado elena the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for being here and i would like to extend my thank you to the wolfman center for having me here. before i start i would like to say here i present ion views. they do not represent the views of the united states government department of defense or the national defense university. in my speech today i will talk a little bit about russia's terrorist threats and of course many are concerned about what putin is doing in syria how that is related to counterterrorism its declarations that he is willing to fight isis is a terrorist threat. we will get to that towards the end of the presentation but i wanted to cover really is the
evolution of the terrorist threat in russia, russia's experiences with terrorism and russia's experiences with counterterrorism. i will hopefully speak for 20 or 30 minutes and then i will turn it over for questions and i'm looking forward to the discussion. in russia most people with probably have had some kind of experience with terrorism and me included. that's why i am studying this topic and that is why i'm so interested in the topic and i still remember when in 1995 everyone was glued to their tvs because of the hostage crisis. in 2002 my aunt -- at the last minute she decided not to go to the theater but of course the reader became well-known to the rest of the world as the scene of the hostage crisis.
later on i was working in moscow in 2003 and an explosion happened which was two blocks down the road from where i work. it cores every day taking the metro you had the threat of being blown up by a black widows or other suicide terrorists that happened often in 2003 in 2004. based on those experiences or near experiences with terrorism i started looking into the threats and i have studied terrorism and counterterrorism in russia for over 10 years now. terrorism and in russia has evolved that not many people realize russia started terrorism well before the world became concerned that the threats after september 11. back in 91 when chechnya declared independence from the soviet union and then from russia to threat of terrorism
became apparent when an insurgent horses and chechen separatists are using terrorism as a tactic against the russian forces to secure independence of chechnya. at the time that general who is a secular general but at the same time as using islam as a force that consolidated the chechen forces in the fight against russia. it was in the early 90s that he actually declared jihad against russia and used the tactic of terrorism to confront the more superior forces of the russian federation. terrorism became a constant threat in russia and of course the first two major attacks happened in 95 and 96 with the hostage crisis.
the more may be in the notorious case of terrorism in the first chechen war was the radiological terrorist attack. while in russia he wasn't perceived seriously but at the same time in 95 in november the leader of chechens party secured the position of radiological substances and hit them in moscow. so this was one of the experiments with terrorism that he undertook then much later he was also the mastermind behind transformation of the terrorist threats that went from hostage crises to suicide attacks to radiological attacks. the employment of the black widows to the employment of converted russian -- and i will briefly talk about those as
well. the chechen campaign, the first chechen campaign lasted from 94 to 96 and was over with de facto victory put the chechen fight. in 99 a wave of apartment bombings to lace in russia and moscow. after that wave of apartment almonds the second counterterrorist operations in chechnya started and this time it was a counterterrorist operation against terrorists, supposedly was alleged ties with osama bin laden and al qaeda. in the second chechen conflict there were still major hostage crises. in 2002 it was the crisis in moscow and 2004 the islam hostage crisis in the school however in the second campaign terrorism started shifting and
here you see for example the implementation of a tactic of suicide terrorism. the first suicide terrorist attack happened in november of of -- june, excuse me of 2000 where -- lou herself up and blew other people up. this was a foreign tactic for the north caucasus. allegedly the tactic was implemented under or in mujahideen who came and joined the chechen and the north caucasus insurgency from afghanistan and other post-afghan complex from bosnia algeria and other places. another tack tick that transformed chechen terrorism and by chechen terrorism i refer to chechen terrorism but often it spread into the north caucasus so after 99 we are speaking about the insurgents in the north caucasus and it packed
pickup terrorism implemented by the insurgent forces throughout the north caucasus and moscow and the rest of russia as well. another tactic that chechen mujahideen started implementing was the employment of women in conflict. for those of you familiar with jihad and the international terrorist forces this is a new tactic in the chechen fighters pioneered this tack tick implying women and complex. the traditional world and islam is jihad for women is supporting fighters and providing for the fighters. and chechnya women became the active fighters and this tactic spread to moscow and later on groups such as al qaeda in iraq started implementing this tactic as well. another shift in the terrorist threat in russia was the conversion of adherence to radicalism and the employment of
slavic solove fee and terrorist attacks. especially in moscow will be very hard due to the increased surveillance of security services it would be very hard to carry out a loan terrorist attack if you are from the north caucasus because of their ethnic profile so they tactics the terrorist forces in implemented was using the slavs who look like anyone passing by in moscow and using them to carry out suicide attacks. since the mid-to thousands the vast majority of suicide attacks on the territory of russia had been the slavic effort for solipsism or russian wahhabism. these trends have been concurrent with the trend of islamization radicalization of jihad in the north caucasus.
it became the center in the north caucasus that supported the chechen insurgency and then started supporting the insurgency toward the establishment of this islamic state in the north caucasus. today in origin late we speak about the entire region of the north caucasus engulfed in an insurgency so the six and the bordering areas are under the influence of insurgencies and whether active or not there are caucasus that anticipate -- participating carry out attacks. at the time when terrorism struck russia, russia was not prepared to face the threat grade there was no counterterrorism legislation there were no counterterrorist to fight the threat. in the 90s during the first chechen war the threat was perceived as one of the consequences of the chechen war.
the situation changed after the first chechen war. the russian government legislated the law in 1998 law on counterterrorism and that law contained illegal instrument for the russian forces to carry out counterterrorist operations since 99 and so on. the counterterrorist operation in chechnya and the neighboring republics under this legislation. more counterterrorist innovation to place as the war progressed and as the terrorist operations progress. since 99 russia no longer implemented the solution that it used in the first chechen conference so there were no massive bombardments or ground operations as you see in the first chechen conflict. since 99 the russian administration has used more tactical targeting of the
terrorist group in the north caucasus. instead of conscripts it has use contractors and targeted operations have become the symbol of terrorist operations. so few compare counterterrorist operations from the second chechen to the second you see there is a lot of improvement. the names most associated with terrorism in russia. travel between russia and the neighboring republic georgia as a rush on in other countries have been secured so it's much more difficult today to travel and use those routes that they use before two channel terrorist elements and all the foreign aid many training camps in chechnya and the north caucasus have been
eliminated. you might know that chechen forces in the north asus have used insurgents and terrorists suicide terrorists etc. so a lot of those have been deployed and eliminated. you can see the russian counterterrorist attempt has been successful at certain points in an certain aspects. at the same time there is a big question of what is happening now, where the north caucasus are now and how it's all relevant to syria. despite the fact that the russian ports have been trying to stamp out chechen separatism islam must project for establishing a muslim state in the north caucasus this fight has been going on for close to 20 years now. we see the threat has not been eliminated. there still are insurgent factions in the north caucasus. there are still terrorist attacks in the north caucasus
and beyond. you might have heard the big scare before the olympics when the terrorists insurgency declared they would do anything to undermine the olympics and prevent them from happening. you also might have seen that the chechen conflict has had an impact on other places. for instance in ukraine when they ukraine conflict started in 2014 you saw chechen forces fighting on both sides of the ukrainian conflict. there were chechen forces who supported the pro-russian separatist. on the other side there were chechen forces fighting against the russians and there are several of the counterterrorist groups there are that have declared that they have been fighting against russia because that is what they have been doing for a long time so you might have seen the presence of the battalion. those are the chechen
contentions fighting on the anti-separatist side in ukraine and of course the big question today is what are some of the north caucasus individuals doing in syria? what is the threat to russia and why is russia getting involved in serious? some people are concerned is russia supporting bashar assad in syria or is russia trying to prove to the rest of the world that it is this a big power that foreign country still have to consider while implementing differing decisions. russia has real concerns about terrorism and ice is coming back to russia. a number of terrorists from the north caucasus have joined the syrian civil war since it started in 2011. some of these groups have declared that they are loyal to the caucasus emirate's establishes in the north caucasus under the leadership of
of -- however some of these factions have joined isis and pledged allegiance to isis and are fighting in the name of isis. moreover some of those mujahideen fight against syria have declared that they will be coming back to russia, that they will be striking against russia and some of them have started coming back to russia and this is a growing concern for the russian government and for the russian security services. ..
factions and fighting among them. even in 2010 to be in different groups when the leader of the foreign forces of the north caucuses attempted to take over the caucuses had control of the caucuses. dated 68 to take control and redeeming that control but what has to happen there is a lot of the factions some of them pledged allegiance to rices several factions have declared their no longer royal to the project but june of this year there was another announcement of
the majority of those factions that we are pledging allegiance to isis but the speaker did declare at this point we are establishing from the north caucuses and this is our group so isis has already declared it has a branch so on the one hand russia has those that come from the north caucasus and from the forces that joint basis and syria but russia is known, - - counterterrorism has been pushing these insurgent factions toward syria nbc a tendency of conflict there retain the loyalty to the caucuses project so while it
is hard to predict what the next step will be, at the same time isis remains a threat it is impossible to predict if putin will send ground forces tears syria, however what has happened there has been chechen no one and it to. despite operations of counterterrorism chechen that is still going on. so president putin has not secured victory over the north caucuses. what is the probability to secure victory by air strikes of groups or forces in syria? a question if it is even
possible to achieve with a message he is implementing an with further counter terrorist operations to send ground troops for the russian government there reeks of afghanistan and unsuccessful operations and we can see that again is not successful for mr. putin. so i will stop here with the initial comments and turnover for questions the major trend of counterterrorism to have more concrete questions. >> i look around the room what they know about the
middle east so i will leave syria and let you address that i would just ask q. to clarify a couple things about the north caucuses. number one you said putin has now won a victory how do you define that? a lot of russians will tell you he did he ended the war you can walk freely on the streets he is not bombing in a more a man is in control so how would you define victory? >> a great question. yes there is a lot of russians and people then the government and counterterrorism that says there is certain success with counterinsurgency operations but putin switched his policy badminton set of that targeted operation he started to rely on the plan
to pacify chechnya and a certain level that has worked because they have pacified the factions of the insurgency. this would probably a qualify as success. however the situation remains problematic there are still terrorist attacks maybe not as much in the news of those that are performed in moscow or the neighboring regions if you look at the list of attacks you will see there are still attacks happening on either hand one of the biggest problems was counter insurgency and terrorism
with the threat to the region this is the most problematic aspect because the insurgency in the terrorist threat is no longer confined to a chechen rebel over the caucuses less jointed and hierarchical and they're all over the north caucasus is ready to strike and nobody knows when. you can see how hard it is to predict you can see that with the boston bombings were virtually impossible for security services to prevent loaned of individuals to carry out these attacks. >> so victory is zero threat of terrorism? because i suspect many say that is a realistic but there'll always be a threat of terrorism.
>> is probably politically impossible because that is political suicide to say we put an end to terrorism of the victory is to minimize that threat not for the rest of the region and as i looked at the north caucuses this is what has happened in has been pushed out of chechnya into the broader region and beyond. the more radicalized factions of the younger generation who are eager to fight has been loyal to this dynamic and you might have seen a strike against civilian so they attempted to preserve to not strike as
actively but there is also the transformation of the insurgent tactics with what is going on with those more radicalized forces and are the ones moving to do syria and other places maybe not the north caucasus is right now. >> i will ask the inverse question talk about terrorism spreading presumably if russians are afraid that conflict in syria or elsewhere will result in the infiltration that means they don't have confidence in the ability to secure their border. how does that look in terms of the south caucus' neighbors and how does that look with the central asian neighbors?
>> if you compare the borders now and back to the '90s you can see a dramatic shift the border with georgia was not secure and this is the channel for which mujahedin were transferred to the north caucasus. to the present day you can see the border is very secure with very little opportunity to air travel through the established checkpoints but the borders we have seen is a tory is a m possible to monitor. there is the same problem on your the of caucuses in the far east and russia is still working in that direction to continue monitoring the border to close them off to insurgent elements however
that is harder than it seems are declared. >> is there any doubt anyone who is fighting in syria has successfully entered russia? >> there are cases reported by human rights organizations and the russian security services those that are in detention that have confirmed they have been fighting in syria on behalf of isis so they're still in detention and it isn't clear where they go for now and there has been cases of individuals moving back to other territories like the central asian republics because of the difficulty to go back to russia you may have heard of guantanamo where there have been several individuals from the north caucuses that
were detained they faced persecution and abuses while there was no definite proof that those individuals were fighting against russian or the u.s. forces in afghanistan so who is really fighting and what is happening when they come back. >> we will open to question as to everyone here. we have microphones give us your name. >> i am with the middle east program. they you very much.
my question is about the ground force is syria. with the iraqi government against isis to play the role of the air force is there a danger that russia is working with has blood on the ground to be seen as the air force in the region for this situation? did think putin has a transition in mind when he ever abandoned assad? >> of course, it is
impossible to predict if you will use ground forces is or not he says he is absolutely not ready in serious but probably what is more predictable is the continuation of air strikes were to the forces of assad and other forces in the region to support ground forces to proceed. but what we saw happening in you crave and there was an influx of the dead bodies of the russians or the soldiers that were fighting in the ukraine, that is when the public opinion started to return against the issue and started to question when he was really doing in ukraine. the save situation can be easily predicted if the
ground forces go into syria and if they start to come back with the dead bodies that is a question were really fighting for? and whether this is a bp to of afghanistan or chechen now. >> with the second question question, it is hard to predict his true intentions. it could be he wants to support him and tell he is ready to go on the defense that i would be in syria as long as i can support president teeeight nine to return against isospin on the other hand, you can see he will continue supporting assad so you can see it will
take those courses and tell he retains control of the entire country. those are some print -- possibilities but at this point he has declared i will only be there and tell assad turns against the opposition to restore order in the country. >> said that not big the question if he has paid in his troops he has limited success he has not put ground troops since syria he
cherry picks his targets so does he not have faith in his ground forces? >> there are a number of things going on. first of all, the operation in chechnya in '94 and '96 the russian military has gone a long way. there has been a lot of initiatives with the russian military that has been trading and reforming with a lot of changes that make it more effective smaller battalions against terrorist groups specifically trained against insurgent operations everything can the '90s there were not prepared to
fight the insurgency bear right now there are contingents however not very successful operation did you create - - ukraine because so far -- but has sought acknowledged it was those forces but for the public opinion raleigh he seemingly supports the president's very much against sending troops on the ground it is still a threat the syrian operation and vice this seems very remote to put soldiers on the ground i am not sure that mr. putin wants to cross the line to
read maya dash alienate that population. >>. >> i have to root questions - - two questions was the factor of this investigation published to facilitate the fight precisely because everett's pointed at the project but my second question regarding the recent statement to be the first to travel tears syria along with his highly
trained private army he seems to have no hesitation about going. can you comment if that is the unlikely possibility with the troops being of the interior ministry? thank you. >> thank you for your question. going back to the investigative report recently it came out the security services have been implicated to push the north caucasus insurgents out and has been facilitating the transfer to syria. in fact, it isn't as much border security but the involvement of security services of porter security has been approved but it is fairly difficult world in the '90s and today it is
much more complicated if the security services help you to leave the country to join the fight in syria on this side of crisis. so it isn't clear if it is the factual information that was based on interviews in the region with some of the insurgents. it is complicated those that are targeting anyone those that are called in the forest the insurgents to target the same people in
the villages for money and support and food and other things. so as a bullet - - a villager with the security services and the insurgent forces and for some it is easier to the fans to stay and find employment which is so very hard and problematic the employment situation is bad and the north caucuses there is a lot of religious issues. some may go to syria because there is nothing else to do in the region or it is so hard tuesday. whether the involvement is true is still a gas. but this situation is not conducive to young people to stay in the region to find
opportunities for alternatives. >> could you bribe to get out of the country? the idea there is a policy from moscow to encourage people to go to the conflict they are afraid that is radicalizing people to come back. they seem contradictory. >> they do. it does seem highly improbable there is the official policy to say that you have to go to a serious to fight for isis then come back and we will kill you but at the same time. >> skip a couple of steps. [laughter] or just air strikes in syria but the fed is say policy of
the leaders but the person initially use of the jihad happening in syria but he said wait a second there will not be enough people to stay in the north caucasus to fight them there was a fat wallet -- fatwah war said then they eliminated the leaders like that. for with its approach to syria but going back to your point a person who'd declared to be fighting in
his behalf his forces although not the official word taking part in the conflict on the pros separatist forces so there is always -- already a precedent not his official forces but links to the regime. he may be sending or preparing his troops he may be ready to train and equip those people so if there is a decision and they would be among the best to fight. >>. >> in the '90s the u.s. was
involved with us soviet troops were there any in the revolt? >> not as much as you could predict. after afghanistan those who were fighting the soviet troops went and joined insurgencies around the world including the north caucuses there were quite a few from afghanistan and other conflicts who came to join the north caucasus but there were several americans as well but the policy against the u.s. with the insurgency or terrorism.
to save the repeat of the situation posed serious is what we saw opposed afghanistan for those who did not want to fight anymore but that threat has been voiced rarefactions said we will come back. >> is sent the argument that there is a safe haven? >> there has been that and reports the u.s. has ben supporting the insurgency in the north caucuses and has been training mujahedin forces which partially is true because does you
attention to what president putin said with that effort against isis with saudi arabia and all the gulf states we can see what putin was trying to affect not just to support at that. . . the united states should engage with putin to have a concerted effort at not just destroying the forces of isis, but also the financial backers, the banks.
>> the un speech that mr. putin gave did refer to the arms transfer, the syrian opposition forces allegedly plot to have supplied by the un and kayfive. but he never named back back country or actor that he was acting about. his rhetoric clearly specified, look at what happened in libya. the us when in and actually created the very force because they remove saddam and saddam did prevent isis from happening at the time which is a very powerful rhetoric that is used. and it actually does make sense because you have on the one hand the probability of a dictator staying in power but may be controlling the insurgents in the
terrorist forces. on the other hand, you have the unpredictable solution that the west sort of has tried to implement and the us-led coalition has tried to implement, but the west has been so indecisive and the coalition again, mr. pruden points out that there has been no successes achieved by the coalition. of course,course, whether his alternative will be more successful is another question. >> and he points out. >> the gentleman in the blue
for sweater. >> keep it short. >> a long history in chechnya. we have a history of the current government in russia that uses repression. nemtsov was murdered. lawyers in prison have been murdered. there were four apartment bombings, many people suspiciously archaic. it would serve to unify the country. i make the plea to people here,.
>> okay. and the lady right here? [speaking in native tongue] i worked there is a journalist. covering most of the events so my question, i have undeniable evidence of the kremlin and general, their role in all of those serious attacks. i myself have undeniable evidence of the involvement in attacks, 2,005. that is my 1st question. what is your opinion? second question is, you mentioned that actually it
was a guess about fsb involvement, the kremlin involvement, possible alleged involvement in pushing out the g hotties, the potential extremists from russia in general, and you also said that -- >> what is the question? >> the following. those few who were reportedly were detained. >> i think we get the. we got it. >> in 2012 russia started an official policy of cleaning up the presence in russia from the extremists in preparation.
and they are limited inside the republic. how do they manage to get out of russia with those secured borders? >> question about the russian government involvement in all of these things. >> just like you mentioned, there are a lot of questions about the official government involvement. and i speak about it more in depth in the book, there is some evidence suggesting that the fsb might be involved in them. investigations of unclassified and have not been allowed.
there are no establish facts, but at the same time the investigation would not be allowed. as you mentioned harassment, human rights violations come all those things do happen and of course do not contribute to the resolution of the conflict. how many, how many of them are pushed by the security services, it is still hard to say at this point just because some of this information is classified, some of this information is available on the ground reported by some journalists but not others. so while we do not have access to the official reports, it is hard to say conclusively about the
actual role of security services. >> you forgot to say the most important thing. >> exactly. >> more answers no doubt forthcoming in the book. thank you for joining us. i no it is a short amount of time, thank you for joining us and join me, please, and thanking. [applause] >> coming up on teewun, leaders in the black lives matter movement on the need for state and local assistance russian security strategy followed by a look at terrorism in russia. [applause]
[inaudible conversations] >> thank you. so yesterday and throughout the day today we have been receiving a lot of data, numbers, how to think about issues, facts, figures. but i think what is also important, and this came up in the last conversation and has been a theme running through the conference is that we need to ground ourselves and people, and this is what this panel is about. grounding ourselves in a movement, people, and the conversation about racism and the decisions that leaders and others in this country have made that impact black communities. forcommunities. we talk about black communities were talking about communities.
those numbers are amplified. unemployment, mass incarceration, healthcare, pay equity, police misconduct, so much more all affect black communities differently very serious life-and-death consequences. fortunately, a new movement has emerged focusing on doing something to address black lives in this country. and i think it is critically important the countries elected officials been time understanding the movement come out each of you can use your power and platform top of the movement and address the systemic issues facing black communities i am
committing whatever resources we can bring to bear to help support the movement and the coming months and years let me turn it over to dorian to provide further context. he will then introduce our amazing panelists. you might recognize some. his frequent contributions to the networks. in fact, i think you are getting back tomorrow morning which is why we are so grateful to have him here today. a great leader and bringing the issues around the movement to the masses.
please give him a warm welcome. >> thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. good afternoon, everyone. that is a little better. so it has been a little over a year now since the death of michael brown and thurston, missouri sparked nationwide protest. shot and killed more than two years ago,ago, and of course am talking about trade on margin.
and thankfully movements like black last matter or the movement for black lives has erupted and helps to bring about the stories of those who would have otherwise been without a voice. obviously this is a by cameras on all of our phones that we can now use and in some ways the devices are democratizing the media and allowing us to bring greater attention to the lives and the taken lives a particularly black americans. you probably know know earlier this year on march 4 the department of justice released to long-awaited reports. what happened in ferguson, missouri. we found officer jack wilson's actions were not unreasonable according to police protocol.
however, the other report revealed the ferguson police department long-standing institutional culture embraces meant for those of us the study this and those of us that have been active in police accountability and taking on racial disparities and bias in policing, none of this came as a surprise. but indeed they sparked more action, and you will here about the activities of the several campaigns from the organizations represented here. he asked me to provide a little historical context and the one example i can think of to try to track -- frame this discussion from black lives matter and policing in black communities, stage violence, the one image that can't to my mind is the image of him until. from 1954, i believe. 1954, 55. fifty-five which in many ways it is not as the books
bringing about a greater greater police accountability and racial justice for black americans in all americans. and if you want to test the nature of our democracy, you can look at the flight of -- plight of black americans. and by the way, also native americans. if you look at the plight of the most marginalized, it gives you a sense of the health of our democracy. so we will here 1st from dante barry who was named new leaders of social justice and then 2015 and this year couple of weeks ago as the root 100 and terms of emerging, fantastic leaders doing amazing work in this country. the executive director of million had his movement for
justice organizing to and mass criminalization previously the roseville institute, several other organizations. msnbc, cnn, a prolific writer. and he is also on the board of the andrew goodman foundation and an opportunity agenda communications institute fellow. join me in welcoming dante barry. >> mental note to thank all of us. as dorian noted my name is dante barry.
emerge in response to the murder of trade on martin. reemergedreemerged in large part because of the media's failure to adequately address the events leading to his death and after his death. and our work really looks at the core of what we see as a fundamental problem, mass, mass criminalization. if we see from the 1980s the right-wing movement has had this strong presence, strong conversation around line order, typically to keep black communities and their place. and we have seen this in media, whether it's cops, law and order, but and order, but the mainstream media narrative has always been criminal black person and law enforcement hero. that is the economy we see through our communities today. and so our work is really
two things. we build next-generation human rights leaders working to end mass criminalization and gun violence and transform the public narrative around blackness in the media. and looking at anti-blackness at how it is pervasive in all our communities and laws and policies and cultures and how we look at this world. and when we say that, we mean that when all black lives matter all lives will matter, too.matter, too. and i want to make sure that is also communicated, when we look at anti- blackness, that is the root of most of our issues. and so i want to kind of quickly touch upon a couple of things. i we will work is core to answering this question, who has the right to feel and be safe in this country. we have gone through the black communities are no longer feeling safe. they do not feel safe with
police, don't feel safe within there own communities and they don't feel safe when there is a white vigilante coming to a church they do notthey do not feel safe. when we think about what safety looks like come i want you to close your eyes and think about what makes you feel safe. who you are with, where your at, what it sounds like, like,like, feel like. more often than none the 1st thing that comes to your mind is going to be a beach probably with the family, you are going to feel comfortable. needless to say, police prisons and security cameras don't often come. society has taught us that police prisons and security cameras are what makes us feel safe. black people, black
communities feel safe when black communities are not trying to survive. we have the ability to not feel politically isolated and marginalize and nonsystem, will be have the resources to reinvest in our communities as well. so in our membership we have folks that are working on a number of campaigns whether private prison divestment, divesting from resources police in new york city kamal the budget, how the budget in new york city was spent on over $100,000 for 1300 new cops in the city and how that resource will be better spent in communities that are poor and marginalized to even gun divestment and looking at have guns, it's really influencing how communities are being attacked. and this conversation around investment and reinvestment is not new. we have seen some work happening in california,
really thinking about how we can reconfigure the priorities are on budgets, when budgets that are being spent on over policing communities, over incarcerating communities and budgets that are being used to impact gun violence what if they were better recruit to have redirected injuries and were poor and marginalized what if we are able to solve the poverty question how work is geared toward that and i want to close but black lives will matter when black community start.
join the center as a justice fellow in the fall 2013. focus on organizing and criminal justice policies in new york city in an attempt to develop meaningful policy -- bottom-up policy reforms. she also worked extensively on police and criminal justice reform with partners around the country. she received her law degree from from school too far from some school in new haven. before that she was with the bronx defenders, equal justice initiative and criminal policy initiative, working in zimbabwe, along the way got masters.
and was then working in south africa teaching and nelson mandela's alma mater. she will talkshe will talk to us about her work at the center for popular democracy on the movement for black lives. >> it is a huge honor to be here. i am going to leave a little bit. >> thank you all so much for having me here. it is a huge honor because the panel is esteemed. but because i do a lot of local work, and city council , constantly dreaming and scheming. it is fun to be in a room full of folks at the state level, obstacles at the local level, we can address some of them. i am going to start by
talking a bit about the work that we have been doing and have done and thinking about the place of state legislation and legislators in transformational change. building stuff out of state houses mostly around racial profiling. we have seen a lot of action at the state level. but initiatives arising out of the state do not look like the gravity or possibility of the moment that we are in and don't reflect the expirations of freedom fighters and folks on the ground who are impacted by policies that limit education, and for state violence. andand so i think it is necessary to think about the entire system and not about tweaking the system but instead about transforming it and so much of that must happen at the state level. and so i will speak briefly. i hope it is kind of an amen audience, but the system that we are inside of color
of the criminal justice or education system, they are not just in need of tweaks but are broken because the roots are rotten. a criminal justice system came out of slavery and is a system built on social control, not safety. and it is not just about practices that are broken and there are practices that we need to fix but is the purpose of criminal justice is fundamentally fraud. the system continues to support and profit white supremacy in basic ways. what i think about what has to happen in the next few years and the laws and reforms that we make we really haven't i for reforming the systems. what is the purpose of a policing system in our country.
in order to align state legislation with the present opportunity, and requires a boldness on your part and also a boldness on our part to push you into those places and it requires a real vision about the world that we want to live in. the challenge is of the movement and yours, toyours, to balance this visionary transformation which is thinking about a new system that has different objectives and practices with the need to enact small steps and reforms today and tomorrow. how do we hold both of those things, recognition that we are inside of a broken system that is harmful and violent but also those things we must do in the next few years that get us to that place. i think that requires aa long-term vision, and yesterday i was in new orleans with a group of grassroots activists thinking about city budgets and reinvesting at the city level. and i talk a lot about the freedom budget.
and randolph came up with this in 1967, and1967, and it is essentially a ten year plan to eradicate poverty. it is hilarious. full employment and living wage and access to housing, things that you hear presidential candidates say today, and they said this and 67. i was talking about this plan. and can mcgill interrupted enter up to me and said comeau we have been doing justification work we uncovered the 100 year plan to remake the los angeles neighborhood. the hundred year plan. this corporationthis corporation has a 100 year plan to re- envision what los angeles will look like. but the idea is not sufficient. we must have a vision