tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 6, 2016 8:00pm-12:01am EDT
the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar 537, senate resolution 482. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. th the clerk: calendar number 587 senate resolution 482 urging the european union to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 540, senate resolution 504. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 540, senate resolution 504, recognizing the 70th anniversary of the fulbright
program. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., thursday, july 7. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later that day. further, that following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of house message accompanying senate 764. finally, that all time during morning business, recess or adjournment of the senate count postcloture on the motion to concur. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the
senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until >> earlier today the members continued work on a bill of sanctuary cities and immigration laws. the legislation would ensure that state and local law-enforcement cooperate with federal officials to protect communities from criminals and suspected terrorists who are in the u.s. legally. illegally. the chairman confirmed brian not in -- to work on a measure for genetically modified food labeling. follow the cenobite here in c-span2 when members gamble back in. >> c-span's "washington journal", live everyday with news and policy issues that impact two. coming up on thursday morning,
texas republican congressman blake will join us to discuss the fbi investigation into hillary clinton's email practice while secretary of state. the the fbi director's decision not to recommend prosecution. then, democratic congresswoman karen bass will talk about the fbi's recommendation of no criminal charges against mrs. clinton as well as the 2016 presidential campaign. plus represented a bass will discuss will discuss a houseboat on that violence and counterterrorism. the baton rouge police shooting. and president obama's notion to slow the pace of troop withdrawal. watch "washington journal" live thursday morning, joined the discussion. >> happy i director james comay testifies tomorrow on his recommendation to the justice department not to prosecute democratic presidential clip
candidate, hillary clinton for her use of a private email server. he will speak before the house oversight committee and it is live thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. howard to the white house coverage continues live with the democratic party platform committee in orlando. friday july 8 at 3:00 p.m. eastern and continuing saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern. members will debate and vote on the democratic platform for this year's election. live coverage on c-span, the c-span radio app, and see spend at work. >> c-span.org. >> every saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern will take a look at past conventions in the presidential candidate who went on to win their priorities
party's nomination. the saturday will focus on income it presents who ran for reelection, dwight eisenhower at the night of 56 election in san francisco per the 1954 democratic convention in atlantic city with lyndon johnson. richard with lyndon johnson. richard nixon at the 1972 republican convention in miami beach. 1980 democratic convention with jimmy carter in new york city. the 1984 republican convention in dallas with ronald reagan. george hw bush at the 1992 republican convention in houston. bill clinton in chicago for the 1996 democratic convention, and the 2004 republican four republican convention in new york city with george w. bush. past republican and democratic national convention, saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern from c-span. >> president obama announced that the u.s. will decrease the number of troops in afghanistan to 8400 troops over the next six months. a higher number than originally planned. here's a look.
>> good morning everybody 114 years ago as al qaeda attacked our nation on 911 the united states went to war in afghanistan against these terrorists and the tele- ban that harbor them. over the years and thanks to heroic efforts by military, our intelligence community, diplomats in our development professionals we pushed al qaeda out of its camps, help the afghan people tackle the taliban and help them establish democratic government. we dealt a crippling blow still the al qaeda leadership, we deliver justice to osama bin laden. and we trained afghan forces to take responsibility for their own security.
given that progress, a year and half ago in december 2014, america's combat mission in afghanistan came to a responsible ends. compared to the 100,000 troops we once had their, today fewer than 10000 remain. compared to their previous mission, helping to lead the fight our forces are now focused on two narrow missions, training and advising afghan forces and supporting counterterrorist operations against the remnants of al qaeda as well as other terrorist groups including isis. in short, even as we maintained a relentless case against those were threatening us, we are no longer engaged in a major ground war in afghanistan. but, these narrow missions continue to be dangerous. over the past year and a half 38
americans, military and civilian have lost their lives in afghanistan on behalf of her security. we honor their sacrifice. we stand with their families and their grief and in their pride. we resolve to carry on the mission for which they gave their last full measure of devotion. this is also not america's mission alone. in afghanistan we are joined by 41 allies and partners, coalition, coalition that contribute more than 6000 troops of their own. we have a partner in the afghan government and people who support a long-term strategic partnership with the united states. in fact, afghans continue to step up. for the second year now afghan forces are fully responsible for their own security. every day nearly 300,000 afghan
soldiers and police are fighting and giving the allies for the country. to their credit, and in the face of a continued tele-ban insurgency and terrorist networks, afghan forces remain in control of all the major population centers, major capital, centers, major capital, major transit routes on most district centers. afghan forces have backed attacks and i push taliban out of some areas. meanwhile another milestone we recently removed the leader of the taliban. nevertheless, the security situation in afghanistan remains precarious. even as they improve afghan security forces they are still not as strong as they need to be. with our help they're still working to improve critical capabilities such as intelligence, logistics, aviation, and command and
control. at the same time the tele- ban remains a threat. they bring gained ground in some cases and suicide bombings, and because they deliberately target innocent civilians more afghan men, women, and children are dying. often overlooked in the global refugee crisis, millions of afghans have fled their homes and many have been fleeing their country. as president and commander-in-chief i've made it clear that i will not allow afghanistan to be used has safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again. that is why constantly review our strategy with my national security team, including our commanders in afghanistan. in all of these reviews were guided by the facts, what is happening on the ground, to determine what is working and what needs to be changed.
that is why at times i have made adjustments. for example, by, by slowing the drawdown of our forces and more recently by giving u.s. forces more flexibility to support afghan forces on the ground and in the air. i strongly believe that it is in our national security interest, especially after all of the blood and treasure we have invested in afghanistan over the years, that we give our afghan partners the very best opportunity to succeed. upon taking command of coalition forces the spring general nicholson conducted a review of the security situation in afghanistan and our military posture. it was was good to get a fresh set of eyes. based on the recommendation of general nicholson as well as secretary carter and chairman dunford and for extensive consultation with my national
security team, as well as congress and the afghan government, and our international partners, i am announcing an additional adjustment. instead of going down to 5500 troops by the end of this year, the united states will maintain approximately 8400 troops into afghanistan next year through the end of my administration. the narrow mission assigned to our forces will not change. there remain focused on supporting the afghan forces and going after terrorist. but, maintaining our forces at this specific level based on our assessment of the security conditions in the strength of afghan forces, it will allow us to continue to provide tailored support to help afghan forces continue to improve. from coalition bases in kandahar we'll be able to support afghan forces on the ground and in the air. we continue supporting critical counter terrorism operations.
we are reaffirming the enduring commitment of the united states to afghanistan and its people. the decision i am making today can help our allies and partners align their own commitments. as you know tomorrow i depart for the nato summit where i will meet with our coalition partners and afghan president. many of our allies and partners have already stepped forward with commitments of troops in funding and we can keep strengthening afghan forces through the end of this decade. the nato summit will be an opportunity for more allies and partners to affirm their contributions. i'm confident they will. all of us have a vital interest in the security and stability of afghanistan. my decision today also sends a message to the tele- ban and all of those who have opposed afghans afghanistan's progress. you have now been waging war against the afghan people for many years, you have been unable to prevail. afghans of purity forces continue to grow stronger and the commitment of the national community, including the united states to afghanistan and its
people will into her. i will say it again. the only way to and this conflict and to achieve a full withdrawal of foreign forces from afghanistan is through a lasting political settlement between the afghan government and the tele- ban. that is the only way. that is why the united states will continue to strongly support and afghan led reconciliation process and why would call on all countries in the region to and safe havens from militants and terrorists. finally, today's decision best positions my successor to make future decisions about our presence in afghanistan. in january the next u.s. president will assume the most solemn responsibility for the commander-in-chief the security of the united states and the safety of the american people. the decision i'm making today ensures that my successor has a solid nation for continued progress in afghanistan, as well
as the flexibility to address the threat of terrorism as it evolves. in closing i want to address directly what i know it's on the mind of many americans, especially her troops and the families who have borne a heavy burden for security. when we first set of forces in afghanistan 14 years ago, few americans imagine that we would be there in any capacity this long. as president, focused our strategy on training and building up afghan forces. it has been continually my belief that it is up to afghan to defend their country. because we have emphasized training their capabilities we have been able to end our major ground were there and bring 90% of our troops back home. even as we work for peace, we have to deal with the reality of the world as this, and we we
cannot forget what is at stake in afghanistan. this is where al qaeda is trying to regroup, this is where i sell continues to expand its presence if the terrace succeed they will tempt more attacks against us. we cannot allow that to happen. i will not allow that to happen. this september will mark 15 years since the attacks of 9/11. once more will pause to remember the lives we have lost. americans and peoples from around the world. we will stand with their families who still grieve, we will stand with survivors who still bear the scars of that day. we will think the first responders who rushed to save others. and perhaps most important lay we will salute our men and women in uniform, our 9/11 generation
who have served in afghanistan and beyond for our security. we'll honor the memory of all of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. including more than 2200 american patriots who have given their lives in afghanistan. as we do, let us never forget the progress their service has made possible. afghanistan is not a perfect place, it remains one of the poorest countries in the world. it is going to continue to build up military capacity that we sometimes take for granted. given the enormous challenges they face the afghan people will need the partnership of the world but by the united states for many years to come. with our support afghanistan is a better place than it once was. millions of afghan children, boys and girls are in school.
that is a dramatic improvement in public health who have saved the lives of mother and children. afghans have cast their ballots in democratic elections. you have seen the first time credit transfer of power in this history. the current national unity government continues to pursue reforms including record revenues last year to strengthen their country. over time it helped decrease the need for international supports. that government is a strong partner with us in combating terrorist. that is the progress we helped to make possible. that is the progress that our troops have helped make possible in our diplomats and development personnel. that is the progress we can help sustain in partnership with the afghan people and our coalition partners. so i firmly believe the decision
i am announcing today is the right thing to do. for afghanistan, for the united states, and for the world. may god bless our troops and all who serve to protect us, may god bless the united states of america. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> c-span's "washington journal", live every day with news of policy issues that impact you. coming up on thursday morning, texas republican congressman blake will join us to discuss the fbi investigation into hillary clinton's email practices while secretary of state. the the fbi director's decision not to recommend prosecution. then, democratic california congresswoman karen bass will
also talk about the fbi's recommendation of new criminal charges against mrs. clinton. as well as the 2016 presidential campaign. plus, representative bass will discuss possible houseboats on gun violence and counterterrorism measures. the baton rouge police shooting, and president obama's announcement to slow the pace of afghanistan troop withdrawal. be sure to watch c-span's washington watch c-span's "washington journal" beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on thursday morning. join the discussion. >> fbi director james, he testifies tomorrow on his recommendation to the justice department not to prosecute democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton for her use of the private email survey. he will speak be for the house oversight and government reform committee and it starts live thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. >> a headline in the new york times today, the report on the iraq war offers a devastating
critique of tony blair. a voluminous seven-year official investigation into how and why britain went to war in iraq was released this money. the article continues, the main conclusions in the report were familiar. that britain, like the united states used flawed intelligence to justify the invasion. and that iraq posed no immediate national security threats. the former prime minister responded to the report titled a press conference in london. he speaks for almost two hours. >> good afternoon. the statement that i make will be fairly long.
but after the statement has ended than i would be happy to stay and take questions for as long as you want to ask them. the decision to go to war in iraq and to remove saddam hussein from power in the coalition of 40 countries led by the united states of america, was the hardest, most moment is, most agonizing decision i took as british british prime minister. that decision today i accept full responsibility. without the exception, and without excuse. i recognize that the decision held by many in our country over the war and in particular i feel deeply and sincerely, in a way
that no words can properly convey. the grief and suffering of those lost once they loved in iraq. the memories of of our armed forces, the forces of other nations and the iraqis. the intelligence assessment made at the time of going to war turned out to be wrong. the aftermath turned out to be more bloodied than ever we imagined. the coalition plan for one set of ground facts and encountered another, and a nation whose people we wanted to set free and secure from the evil of saddam. it came instead victim of
secondary terrorism. for all of this, i expect more sort of regret an apology then you may ever know or could believe. only two things i cannot say. it is claimed by some that by removing saddam we cause the terrorism today in the middle east and it would have been better to leave him in power. i profoundly disagree. saddam was himself a spring of terror, a continuing threat to peace in his own people. if he had been left in power in 2003 that i believe he would once again threaten world peace
and with the revolution of 2011 began he we would have the same deadly consequences that we see in the carnage in syria today. whereas at least in iraq, for all its challenges we have to say a government that is elected is recognized as internationally legitimate and is fighting terrorism with the support of the international community. the world wants and is, in my judgment, a better place without saddam hussein. secondly, i will never agree that those who died or were injured made their sacrifice in vain. they fought in a defining global security struggle of the 21st century against the terrorism
and violence which the world over destroys lives, divides communities, and their sacrifice should always be remembered with thanksgiving and honor, when that struggle is eventually one, and it will be. i know some of the families cannot and do not accept it as so. i know there are those who can never forget or forgive me for having taken this decision and who think that i took it dishonestly. as the report makes clear there were no lies, parliaments and cabinet would were not misled, there was no secret commitment to war, intelligence was intelligence was not fortified and the decision was made in good faith. however, i accept that the report makes two -- with the way
that decisions were taken. again, i accept full responsibility for these points of criticism even where i do not fully agree with them. i do not think it is fair or accurate to criticize the armed forces, the intelligence services, or the civil service. it was my decision they were acting upon. the armed forces in particular did an extra ordinary job throughout our engagement in iraq in the incredible difficult mission we give them. i pay tribute to and any thoughts that writes for my decision is not attached to them. they are people of enormous dedication encourage in the country should be very proud of them. today is the right moment to go
back however look at the history of that time so that even if they passionately disagree, we will at least understand why i did what i did. and learn lesson so that we can do better in the future. why was saddam a threat, my partnership changed completely on september 11, 2001. 9/11 was worth worse catastrophe in history. over 3000 people died people died that day in america including many british people, making it the worst ever loss of life of our own country citizens from any single terror attack. in fact, 9/11 was not of course the first attack. prior to them, 23 countries have suffered terrorist attacks of this nature. in 2002, 20 different nations lost people to terrorism.
for over 20 years as well the regime of saddam had become a notorious source of conflict and bloodshed in the middle east. the attempt at the nuclear weapons program only halted by prevented strike by israeli military 1981, to use chemical weapons in the war he began with iran, war which lasted seven years with around 1,000,000 casualties. out of the iranian experience came iran's own nuclear weapons program. he invaded kuwait in 1990, use chemical weapons invaded kuwait in 1990, use chemical weapons extensively against his own people. for example, in the massacre where thousands died in a single day. international community made frequent attempts calling for him to give up his program. as of march 2003 -- in 1998, following the objections of the un weapons and struck from iraq
present clinton and i authorized strikes and from that time the regime change in iraq became the official policy of the u.s. administration. in a country where the majority of iraqis, shia muslims and kurds, he he ruled with no parallel brutality with the government almost exclusively only a 20% minority and many of his victims were sunni. someplace was not the only developers of mass destruction. libya had a program, north korea was trying to obtain nuclear capabilities. in iran's program have begun. but only one regime could actually use such and that was saddam. intelligence still valid indicates how al qaeda and 9/11
show that they were prepared to cause mass casualties. so it is important now that we are 15 years after 9/11 to recall the atmosphere at that time. america had never suffered such an attack on its own soil before. this population was devastated. they regarded themselves at war. the taliban who had given sanctuary from qaeda have been removed in 2001. the bombings were over 200 australians lost their life showed the continuing threat. all western nations were changing their security posture, we, we were in a new world. at that time we did not know if the next attack or danger would come from. the fear of the u.s. administration which i shared, was the possibility of terrorist groups acquiring either by accident or by design chemical
weapons, biological biological weapons, or even a primitive nuclear device. the report accepts that after 9/11 things change fundamentally. we believe that we had to change policy on nations developing weapons in order to eliminate the possibility of wmd and terrorism coming together. saddam's regime was a place to start not because he represented the only threat, but because his was the only regime actually to abuse such weapons and his record of bloodshed suggest that he was capable of aggressive and out on predictable, catastrophic action. in addition, the un sanctions imposed on iraq was troubling and therefore containment was faltering. the final iraq survey report which was conducted in sedans wmd program and ambitions after
the iraq war was finding our acceptance of this report found that saddam did indeed intend to go back to developing the programs after the removal of the sanctions. so i asked people to put themselves in my shoes as prime minister, back then more than one year from 9/11 in late 2002 in early 2003 you'll see the intelligence mount up on wmd, and doing so it is that change context of mass casualties caused by a new form of terrorism. you you have to at least consider the possibility of a 9/11 here in britain. and your primary responsibility as prime minister is to protect your country. these were my considerations at the time. that's what led up to war.
it dismisses the conspiracy theory that i pledge britain to action in 2002, i did not and cannot, as i said expertly in their report concluded, i was absolutely clear publicly and privately however that we would be with the usa in dealing with this issue. i made that clear in the notes to president bush in july, 2002 but i also think we had to proceed in the right way and i set out the conditions necessary especially that we should then go down the un route and avoid precipitate of action is indeed the inquiry report found. so, again the inquiry finds that we were reluctant to take the issue back to the u.s. this result was defended in 2002,
giving saddam a final opportunity to come into full and immediate compliance with un resolution and to cooperate fully. . . however, by then, there was substantial disagreement in the u.n. security council. america wanted action, and putin and the leadership of france did not. in a final attempt to bridge the division i agreed with the -- based on saddam's noncompliance with which he had to comply immediately. which included things like interviews with those responsible for his program,
which up to then had been refused, except in a country where obviously he would be subject to intimidation. this accompanied by an ultimatum , compliance would result in military action. so again i secured american agreement to a new resolution, which if it had passed would have avoided military action. but the united states understand blow insisted in the event of continued fall our the u.n. had to be clear that action was followed. that was the approach subjected by saddam. the americans in the uk and other partners of 40 nations assembled a force in the gulf ready for military action. president bush made it clear he was going to act. the british government, under my leadership, chose to be part of that action, a decision agreed
to by parliament, having been given the same information. the 18th of march war was not, and i quote, the last resort. but given the impact of the u.n. and insis citizen of the united states for ropes i understood, they could not be sent there definitely. it was the last moment or decision for us. by then the u.s. was going to war and to move with us or without us. now, the inquiry finds that during the war, without a majority of the u.n. security down in agreement, unmined the authority of the u.n. the reality is that we brittons continually tried to act with the authority of the u.n.
convincing the americans to back the u.n. in 2002 and after the initial conflict it was again britain which put u.n. authority back in place for the aftermath and in 2003, british troops were in iraq with full u.n. authority. the 18th of march, it was gridlock in the u.s. in resolution 1441 has been agreed to give saddam one opportunity to comply. he had not done. so in that case action should have followed. didn't because by then it was an impasse. i say the undermining of theup wherein was in fact renows sal to follow through on 1441. and with the subsequent statement from president putin and the president of france they would veto any new resolution authorizing act in the event of
noncompliance it was clearly not possible to get decision by the u.n. on the 18th of march, this is a vital thing to understand. given especially what was said this morning. we had come to the point of binary decision. whether to remove saddam or not, with america or not. reporters said this was a stark choice. it was. having claims that military action was not a last resort, but might be necessary later. i didn't have the option for that delay. i had to decide.
i thought of saddam, his report, character of his regime, i thought of our alliance with america, and its importance to us in the post 9/11 world, and i waited carefully. i took this decision with the heaviest of hearts. i have already consultedded armed forces and received their commitment to be part of it andshire view we should be part of it. you read my private notes, president bush would seem like my recognition -- this is not like afghanistan. me desire to do this peacefully. but as of the 17th of march 2003, there was in middle way. no further time for deliberation. no room for more negotiation. the decision had to be taken,
and it was mine to take at prime minister. i took it, accept full responsibility for it. i stand by it. i only ask with humility the british people accept that i took this decision because i believed it was the right thing to do based on the information i had, the threats i perceived, and that my duty as prime minister, at that moment in time in n2003, was to do what i thought was right. however imperfect the situation or indeed the process. and moments like this, it's the promound -- profound obligation of the person leading the firefighter of our country to take responsibility and decide.
not to hide behind politic order emotions but to recognize it is a privilege above all others to lead this nation, but the accompaniment of that privilege, when the interest of our nation are plainly at stake, is to lead, and not to shy away. decide and not to avoid decision. discharge that responsibility and not duck it. neither history nor the theater or conduct of modern politics. with all the love of conspiracy theories and willingness and addiction to believing the worst of everyone, falsified my motive in this. i knew it was not a popular decision. i knew what its cost might by politically but that some rink in insignificance'ds he human cost.
i did it because i thought it was right, and because i thought the human cost of inaction, of leaving saddam in power, would be greater for us and for the world in the longer term. so the action commenced on the 18th of march, in less than two months american and british armed forces and those of nations successfully deposed saddam, and that part of the campaign, which was, after all, major strategic objective, was brilliantly conducted by our military, we should never forget that in june 2003 a u.n. resolution was freed upon putting the coalition forces in charge of the country and under u.n. mandate inch august the u.n. had to withdraw following the bombing of u.n. headquarters in baghdad by al qaeda. and in 2004 the country slid into chaos and instability, especially following the
al qaeda bombing of the samarra shia mosque. the surge in 2007 restored the country to relative calm in 2010, a largely peaceful election in which the party with the most votes with a nonsectarian coalition was held. in 2010, al qaeda in iraq was effectively defeated. in 2011, the arab spring began. isis couple over the period and helped by the maliki government, created what we see today. as a result of the removal of
saddam in 2003, libya gave up is nuclear and weapons program, leading to the complete destruction of the program under international insections which turned out to be much more advanced than we knew, which had it remarried with gadhafi it posed a serious threat. the network was shut down. inquiry accepts wait my prime minister to decide to be with the united states for military action. the inquiry questions whether this is really necessary, and the importance i attach to the alliance. 9/11 was an event like no other in u.s. history. i considered it an attack on the free worldment i believe that britain is america's strongest ally to be with them in tackling this new and unprecedented security challenge. i believed it important that
america be part of a wider coalition, and in the end even a majority of the european union nations supported action in iraq. i do not believe we would have had that coalition or persuaded the bush administration to go down the u.n. path without our commitment to be alongside them in this fight. throughout my time as prime minister, first with the clinton administration and this the bush one, britain was recognized as the united states' strongest ally. served us well in kosovo, allow ed us to protect more innocent people than we could have alone. we were america's poor partner in the post 9/11 world and i believe that was right. i believe there are two essential pillars to british foreign policy. our relines with the united states and partnership in europe and we should keep both strong in the vital national interest.
people can disagree with that, but that was my judgment as prime minister. come to saddam and weapons of mass destruction. for more than half a decade i have apologized for the inaccurate intelligence and particularly the intelligence that he had a stockpile of nuclear weapons. there was no fining that number 10 improperly influenced the text. but fining that the intelligence stab edwin dowd that saddam possessed wmd. i only ask that people read the reports given to me, first in march 2002 and then september of 2002, and many other occasions, for example, in note written by my senior adviser days before the military action. in hindsight we may know that some of this information was not correct, but i had to act on the information i had at the time.
i would point out two other things. virtually every intelligence agency had reached the same conclusion and for very good reason. saddam's previous use of weapons, and eviction of the u.n. inspectors in 1998. secondly, it is essential to consider the findings of the iraq survey group. a leading u.n. weapons inspector, 1400 people, done after the war in 2004, on the basis of interviews, include with saddam himself and his leading officials, the very interviews denied inspectors in 2003. read that report because it is -- the inquiry calls it
significant but with respect to them, never explained its significance. the survey group finds that saddam's priority in the late 1990s and in early 2000 was to get sanctions lifted and once they were lift they would fine it was his intent to reconstitute the program because he believed it to be essential to this personal and political survival. above all, the survey group finds he intended to go back to a nuclear program, fearing the anian's nuclear weapons and kept his team's ability to develop those and chemical weapons once sanctions were removed. now, of course, you can never know whether he would have done this, but i ask, if you knew that for a fact this dictator had used chemical weapons on his own people and those of other nations, for a fact he lied about having them so he could continue to produce and use
them, and for a fact he had killed thousands of his own people and those in other countries with no respect for human life or norms of civilized behavior, would you have wanted to take that risk, leaving him in place, or would you want to eliminate it? saddam in my view was going to pose a threat for as long as he was in power. now, the planning in the aftermath. the inquiry makes several criticisms of the planning in the aftermath of the invasion. i accept that in hindsight we should have approached the situation differently. these criticism are significant and include failures to seek better planning for the american side, which i accept, and the failures of american planning are well-documented and accepted. i do note, nonetheless, that the inquiry fairly and honestly admits they have not even after this passage of time, been able to identify alternative
approaches which would have guaranteed greater success. and this i would suggest is for the very simple reason that the terrorism we faced, and did not expect, would have been difficult in any circumstances to counter. this is the lesson we learned from other condition flict zones -- conflict zones special i libya syria, yemen, and others. our planning proceeded on on the basis those risk which is we warned, name through possibility of a humanitarian temperatures a, the use of wmd by saddam, resistance from the regime, and the challenges of reconstruction. in the event that the report does not deal with this in detail, the real problems with those caused by terrorism and through causes we did not expect. al qaeda whose attacks on the u.n., on reconstruction, on the shia population, took the
country to birching of civil war in 2004 and 2006, and other attack from shia militias, inquiry does find that there were warnings about sectarian fighting and blood-letting. accept that. but i would point out that nowhere were these highlighted is a the main risk and we did not anticipate the blood-letting but an insurgency stimulated by external amounts of money. we also now know that the assad regime in syria is deliberately sending terrorists across the border to cause terror and disability. this had a major impact on the coalition's able to make progress in the country. in short, we ended up fighting exactly the same elements we're fighting everywhere in the world today, shia extreme jim and sunni extremism. but the elements were trying to wreck our effort biz second tearar violence and that's what
we did not foresee. the inquiry fund thursdayan 2003 there no option papers presented to cabinet. i note the cabinet debate iraq 26 times in the rubup to conflict. 28 meetings of the ad hoc committee with relevant ministers present. but i should have had a formal options paper for the cabinet. coming to the legality. the report does not make a find only the legal judgment of the then-attorney general. there were very good reasons for not disputing that. the whole negotiating history of resolution 1441 made it clear the u.s. and uk refused the second resolution. the finding of the obligations of iran and the failure to comply was the rome bay -- reasonable basis for action the advice of the attorney general was in line with other law
offices and nations and distinguished legal experts who i fully acknowledge and respect that others took a different view. well where the politics is hotly contested war would be felled. i understand the fining was far from satisfactory but does not alter the legal conclusion of after the detailed meeting the attorney general had with u.s. and uk officials explaining the negotiating history of 1441, painted the view it was not necessary for a second resolution. on the 27th of february gave that view. already on the 7th of march provided that in writing. i accept it would have been better to provide the full written advice to cabinet, but this is not the legal precedent and was not requested by the cabinet. except there is a case of providing it anyway. number of these processes alter the fact that it is clear and does not challenge the inquiry.
the inquiry says there was no indication why i gave my view to the attorney general that saddam was a material breach of 1441. had the attorney general -- as the attorney general was explained my view is not legally necessary because 1441 determined what was a breach. but nonetheless he sought my confirmation of what i thought. but saddam was accepted to not be complying. he had a long history of -- intelligence that is considered valid, showed saddam at the time in breach of u.n. resolutions and blocking officials. the issue was despite the breach he should be given more time. i accept, of course, it is better politically if the security council makes such a determination. but the then, given the position
in the security council, with a fundamental disagreement, it was clear there would be no agreement irrespective of the circumstances. come to this important point is the world safer or less safer without the removal of saddam in 2003? the report never deals with this issue in specific terms. but again with respect to inquiry, the situation has to be debated if we're to reach a conclusion on the wisdom of the judgment i made. i ask a fair-mined to at least consider, if we had withdrawn the threat of action in 2003 and pulled back our forces, we would have found it almost impossible to re-assemble those forces.
sir john says today it might be necessary to take military action later. he said that. but i don't see how we would have re-assembled that force. it would have been hard to keep the process of inspection in place. saddam would have remained. and immensely politically -- he would have had the benefit of $100 a barrel oil. this where is the iraq survey group is so important. it indicates he would have resumed his earlier development of nuclear and chemical weapons. if that is conceivable, as it surely, then his removal avoided what would otherwise have been an unacceptable risk in my judgment. i acknowledge completely and i respect the other point of view. i simply ask that people respect
my point of view this, judgment i took on the facts i had at the time. we then come to the state of iraq today. still engaged in conflict. conflict all over the middle east. but to those who say but nor actions 2003 iraq would be peace inflame 2016, ask them to consider the following: there is no doubt that the sectarian policies of the maliki government attributed to the conflict in iraq but the decisive event in the middle east is the arab spring which began in 2011. starting in tunisia, regimes across north africa and he middle east were toppled or put under sustained attack. in the case of tunisia, libya yemen, the regimes fell in. in 2011 the revolve over the syrian people against he assad
regime began. in syria, a small minority ruled the sectarian majority, comment this case with the sunni in major whit. between 2003 and 2011, by the way, all of those regimes remained in power. not one of them have changed. supposing saddam had stayed in power in 2003. ask this counterfactual. is it likely he would still have been in power in 2011? and the arab spring began? is it likely that the iraqi people would have joined the arab spring or the countries were part of it and this was the most tyrannical regime of any of them and is it likely if the iraqi people had revolted, there was was an upride had gone would
have reacted like assad in syria. sure live it's possible the answer to those questions is affirmative. in that case, the nightmare of syria today would also be happening in iraq, except that the shia sunni balance is inverted. consider the consequences of that. even if we disagreed with removing satisfied sad in 2003, we -- saddam in 2003, we should be thankful we're not dealing with him now. he was deeply sectarian, as the latest research show the leadership was heavily sectarian, deliberately made so. to those who think removing saddam was the cause of the turmoil in the middle east, what is happening in iraq today, i say the following:...
>> more people have died in the whole of iraq with the refugee crisis and no agreement to the future. at least for all of the challenges in iraq today there is a government actually fighting the terrorism and doing so with support, internationally recognized including by saudi arabia and iraq with a legitimate government. and with the prime minister welcoming the white house and capitals across the globe. none none of this excuses the mistakes we have made. none of this excuses the failures for which i repeat, i take full responsibility and i apologize. but it shows the uncertain and dangerous world we live in that all decisions are difficult. each have consequences predicted and unpredicted area the only
thing a decision-maker can do is to take those decisions on the basis of what they genuinely believe to be right and that is what i did. the final passage i will draw a few lessons and concluded take your questions for as long as you wish to ask them. i was the prime minister for the period after 9/11 and through iraq and afghanistan. since then i've spent the bulk of my time in the middle east and study the origins and character of islamic extremism. what is clear is the extremism is a global problem not confined to the middle east, pakistan or afghanistan, it's across africa including nigeria, czech, somalia, asia, including, somalia, asia, including the philippines, thailand and bangladesh. it's in central asia, and of
course we have terrorist attacks here in europe and in the united states. i watched today's decision-makers in libya and syria with the same type of dilemma that i did. we talk about lessons about iraq another complex but i will summarize them briefly here. the first is the danger of revolutionary regime change what her islam is going to be a major factor is once the dictatorship, no matter how abhorrent elements of extremism will move into the vacuum to cause chaos and instability. unlike kosovo or indeed even germany after world war ii, the challenge challenge becomes not one of reconstruction but of security. therefore it is possible evolution or the presence of changes better than the overthrow of existing order without agreement. that is why when the arab spring began it would've been better to try to agree processes of transition in libya and syria so
as to control the aftermath and make changes without instability. be sensible now as a precaution to invest in nation building in both parts of the world where any other time of collapsing and leading to further sense of destruction. some parts of development should be devoted to this. second where we decided to intervene in the majority muslim country than we need to do so in a strong alliance with muslim nations. otherwise we risk being accused however unfairly of intervening in those countries because they are muslim. not because because they represent the security or humanitarian threat. the wage by terrorist groups have a completely different type of military strategy the bank other warfare. we have a expressiveness from around the world. we need to construct the new doctrines and capabilities which allow us to do so effectively and with the right alliances, within the west,
within the muslim world and between us. for us in the west the pain of taking casualties in a fight that is often politically controversial and which does not involve the defense of our own territory is now so great that we risk a situation where political leaders are reluctant to commit especially ground forces to come back. on the other hand forces particularly those of the united states and u.k. are the most experience and highest level of capability. this means consideration of whether we required a different level volunteer for these missions otherwise we are fighting without the best available forces to do the work. for the u.k., we have to have an active debate included with armed forces about our desired level of participation. given that we will always be a partner and the case of the usa a junior partner, we can all agree in person principle that
the un's right to decide the policy including the just occasion of the use of force. the reality is the un is gridlocked effectively with russia in the usa regularly on different sides of similar issues. how can you and be reformed, how can the clear set of rules be agreed and with what measure of objectivity? therefore we must understand the true nature of the threat we face. it is islamic extremism and its ideology, we need to urgently put in place a unified, hence a strategy to defeat it. it should be combination of hard and soft power, including a global commitment of education to reform education systems, encouragement of modernized within islam and it divide the country of propaganda with extremist. then we need an honest debate in the west about her own values and level of commitment to them. the. the west is a big decision to take doesn't believe it is the outcome of the struggle of the
middle east and elsewhere around these issues of islamic extremism and if so what level of commitment as it prepared to shake the outcome. my view is obviously that it does and should make the necessary commitment. so in conclusion, many will find it impossible to reconcile themselves to the decision to remove saddam or my motives in taking it. but it is vital that when i continue to allow controversy of iraq to have the real contemporary threats are security which reflect absolutely the difficulties we actually encountered in iraq. this extremism those who are with us iraq and those who oppose iraq, those developed and developing nations, north and south, while the import. this is our times, it is a challenge of our generation that requires us to act bravely even when in perfectly. at some point we are reach for and achieve a unified, comprehensive foreign defense policy that can defeat it.
iraq will be a chapter in the struggle and an important one. but it was not first and it will not be the last. want to thank you for that report on the time in the care it is taken. i also want to pay tribute to martha gilbert who so tragically passed maybe for the report was concluded. we cannot make decisions without benefit of hindsight but we can issue learn from our experience and from the mistakes that were made. i hope future leaders can learn from those that i made. so that our determination confronting terrorism and violence is not lost but our ability to do so effectively is much greater. the decisions i made i've carried with me for 13 years and i will do so for the rest of my days. there will not be day of my life where i do not relive and rethink what happened.
sometimes ask me why spend so much time in the middle east today, this is why. it is why i work i work on middle east peace and the dialogue between faith and how we can have young people growing up without hatred in their hearts for those who look, think or behave differently from them. it is my believe that if we learn the right lessons today, if we do, the next generation will see the dawn of everlasting peace in place where this began and where will finally end, which is in the middle east. thank you. now for questions. >> two quick questions. one you have said in the past you would do it again, would you still stand by that? and secondly, would you require no through the cameras for the families of the soldiers who died he said the question i'd
like to ask you is, look me in the and tell me you did not mislead the nation. >> i can look not to stepfamilies of this country but the nation and the eye and said, i did not mislead this country, i made the decision in good faith on the information that i had at the time. i believe that it is better that we took that decision, i acknowledge all of the problems that came with that decision. i acknowledge the mistakes and accept responsibility for them. but i cannot do and will not do is say i believe we took the wrong decision. i believe, i believe i made the right decision and that the world is better and safer as a result of it. now many people can disagree with that and that's their prerogative. but this report makes clear and
it does it when you go through the report, there is no lies, there's no deceit no deception but there was a decision. it was a controversial was a controversial decision, decision to remove saddam and it decision to be with america. now many people would disagree with both of those decisions. they came quite close to it this morning, that's fine but if you are going to do that you have to say what the consequences of the opposite decision would have been. because the point about being prime minister is that you are the decision maker. you you sit in the seat and take the decisions. your obligation to the country is to take it as you believe it to be. all of this stuff about lies, deceit, it is all a way of getting us to obscure what is the essence of the question. at that time in march of 2003, was that the right decision? now as as we look back on it, 13 years later what it it had been better to have taken the
opposite decision? what are been the consequence of that opposite decision? if you cannot answer that question then you are not another decision-maker. i have to make the decision. sometimes a people talk about this and talk about me as if i don't care about the loss of life or the grief and suffering of the families or the families of our arm forces but the families of all of those who have died in iraq since 2003. but i have to decide, are more people going to suffer, are more people going to die if we leave this brutal dictator in place? he had already killed so many people. so that that was the decision i'm afraid. >> in july 22002, i am with you what ever you said with george bush. now that does sound and it was read by the americans like a blank check for war. did you do enough to disabuse
them of their reading of that is a blank check for war. >> that was the correspondence, they did not read them that way. neither could they could they have but in july 2002, the whole thing, the whole purpose of my intervention with the president was getting to go down the un route. so after july 2002, comes the un resolution. had saddam complied with un resolution that would've been the end of the matter, but he did not. by the way think it is clear even the words that continue after that statement in the memorandum, i think there is a button i explain all the difficulties in what we perceive with the normal care and the whole purpose of what i was doing was making clear i was going to be with the americans in dealing with this, that was absolutely clear.
i said this evidence, but we needed to go down the un route. >> [inaudible question] >> the fact was we had to go down the un route. but but if we do not put on the un route i'm not in a position. [inaudible] >> what was the decision you had to make on the 18th of march 2003? you took that decision with the consequence of taking that decision were that if you had pulled back the americans would've gone through anyway, military contribution was irrelevant getting the job done anyway and by going through with it when you faced a choice between your frustrations with diplomacy at the un and effectively pulling the trigger that you had already loaded because you cannot keep the troops there indefinitely was to plunge this country for 14 or 15
years of this agony. you could have said no that i'm going to continue with the un and saddam would've been gone anyway. >> this is a really important point, let's just disaggregate that permanent. first of all our forces did play an important part. it was absolutely essential. >> [inaudible question] >> so what you're saying is we should a pullback at that point, let the u.s. do it and i do not know whether you think we should've been in the aftermath or out of the aftermath at swell, that would've been a huge decision for this country to take. at that point, we were u.s. the u.s. strongest ally. that we should be part of this and right at the last minute we are going to pull out and let the other countries go forward, and -- it diplomacy had been exhausted actually in the sense.
there was an impasse in the us, this is familiar to us today. you have rush on the one side and u.s. on the other. >> he said we can continue -- >> that was my decision. the problem with this debate on iraq is once you clear out of the way all the obligations of deceit and so on, and i hope people do actually read this report because it makes it clear those allegations cannot be sustained. but then i agree with you. you have to go back in my shoes as a decision-maker and say at that moment are we going to pull out, leave the u.s. to do it hoping that they do it presumably. yes, they would've done it but we are say we think it is the right thing to do but we are knocking to be part of it. i. i think that is very difficult. >> this rejection that you said that the aviation was no way the aftermath and not responsible for the terrorism that is ripped iraq in the region. as you know very well, al qaeda
six what it calls on government spaces in which the spread of hatred and violence. the way that the aftermath was on plan for which was adequately plan for in the aftermath which is which the report lays out, ungoverned space for the creativity in iraq, the military was disbanded, the intelligence services, all of it was the serrated within months. into that boy. internet boy came al qaeda. what is happening in syria today is being led by the very men who were in the american -- they grew out of al qaeda and to say what is happening in syria today has no links with iran is disingenuous. >> i don't did say it has no links let me be clear about this. you are completely right about -- particularly when the civil war began in 2004-2006, then i agree al qaeda use that the
removal of saddam to move in and create secretary intention. then came the search. the surge largely fixated and so what's shifted after 2010 remember they had an election in 2010. they elected their government then and the leading party in that election was one that was essentially secular. after that time what changed dramatically with syria. you're right, there are people from iraq and then went into syria but it was in the chaos of syria, exactly the same point by the way in the chaos of syria and that ungovernable space, that is where isis came into being. they headquartered themselves that themselves at rocca and then went back over the border in iraq. now my point because we had a debate about syria this past year, i agree when you leave that space ungovernable that is where terrorism breeds.
but not intervention can also lead to those spaces being created. partial intervention can lead to those spaces being created in one thing i've got to say about this report and i say this with respect but it's the difference of writing a report and making a decision. nowhere in this report did they say what they believed what happened if we would've taken the decision -- didn't quite advocate but implied. nor did they say that. now the people are going to say the decision was wrong, they have to at least consider the point that i'm making. that saddam may have gone back and reconstitute his program and we might've had the same situation in iraq today as we have in syria and let us be clear, in syria today more than double the people died in iraq have died in syria, is the worst refugee crisis since world war ii and that is when we did not intervene. >> [inaudible question] what is the fundamental disagreement
with -- he says that you went to war when there was no imminent threat from saddam, he does say that the process authorizing the war there is no founding in preparation of the aftermath, and that our troops were inadequately resource and therefore put in undue risk. now you've said two things today, on the one hand you have created the impression that you are apologizing but you have also say that you stand by your decision to go to war. so what i am wondering and what are you apologizing for today? >> for the mistake. >> what mistakes. >> the mistake some planning and process i absolutely acknowledge. i accept responsibility and i'm not passing it to someone else. i i accept full responsibility
for those mistakes. it is not inconsistent with that. to state that i believe we took the right decision and the difficulty with a report like this is those two things get mixed up together. by the way, in, in the first part of this military campaign at one point i think and at least this morning the first part of this campaign and the british by the way deserve enormous credit for that, what happened after we know, the question is would we be in a better place today if we took the opposite decision. >> [inaudible question] >> i would take the same decision because that's the
decision i believe is right. all insane today is because honestly some of the intelligence has been done and the planning wasn't done properly and i except those criticisms and accept responsibility for them. but i but i think people want me to go one step further and this is my problem, it is a very fundamental problem and i know it causes a lot of difficulty even with people who might support me otherwise. they say no, we want you to apologize for the decision. i can't do that. i can't honestly tell you it that i'm in the middle east or three times per month and i tell you the roots of this terrorism go so much deeper than what happened in iran. we got caught up in the problem there and ultimately if we are not prepared to take these types of decisions and engage this way we'll make the world less safe. that is why you believe in 2013i think it was when parliament had to make the decision on syria and chemical weapons we made a fundamental mistake. i supported the prime minister at the time. in libya -- they accept how these things are difficult but we are not going to be in a better position from these decisions and misplaced in the world.
>> [inaudible question] >> will is it, or is it because we now know how difficult these interventions are? you see, the worry that i have from all of this is that the lessons we learned our lessons essentially a political safety and not political strategy. that ultimately these decisions are difficult. i do not regret taking the decision but there's no doubt about how difficult it has been how controversial it is ben, how much it is overshadowed, and of no significance of this at all but obviously it overshadows everything people think about me, of course this is really difficult. if we had intervened in syria it would also be really difficult by the way. in my view it would've been better if we had taken the action rather than not. so, look this is where i understand all of the criticisms that the report makes of the process.
but i do think it i try to do this, it is too long to get into all these things, but i read and we learned real lessons in political and military strategy. i don't see where they are in the report. i don't see where it tells you what is the right capability today to fight terrorism. what force of a line should britain be constructed in the world today. how does britt make sure it leverages its power the most effective way to defeat terrorism. given other countries who are affected by the terrorism are countries of every description. whether they are aggressive or benign, north or south, pro-iraq, anti-iraq, what does this report tell us? what does this report tell us? what should we do as decision-makers? >> you stand by your decision but this report is a devastating catalog of the failures both in your government and paint a very clear picture of the prime
minister who was that dude who is determined to act with the united states almost,, make, to understand so the some of the families who believe that not just a long time ago but now you should face some kind of punishment? >> by the way that is completely on correct. i was apologize for mistakes in planning and in the intelligence even though i'm not actually responsible for the intelligence. but, you see it's true i took the decision after 9/11 that we should be america's closest ally. again you can disagree with that. i personally think that when you're fighting terrorism in the world today, it would be better if britain today had a really strong type relationship with the united states. now i personally think with our parliament decided not to back president obama and syria it dealt a blow to that.
i'm sorry, but i do. so none of that and diminishes the pain of those families are my sorrow for them or sorrow for what they have gone through their suffering. i would greatly suspect -- the fact is they called upon us as the u.k. to back them at that point we didn't. and i regret that. >> [inaudible question] >> what i tried to do today is explain why i acted as i did. in the end, what more can i do than say to people this is why took the decision i did and if you disagree with me fight but please stop saying that i was liner that i had some dishonest motive.
the reason i cannot depart from the decision is i look at what is happening in the world today and i'm afraid and i do not believe that we are safer today than we were back then. >> i want to pick on two things they haven't mentioned, the report says basically you undermined the sick counsel before the war and at the end of the war they face humiliation for british forces. to accept those as damning judgments have done lasting damage to britain's reputation? secondly on that point on the memo of the 20th of july when you wrote that you would be with president bush, whatever, whatever what? whatever the intelligence, whatever the un said? what? whatever the little difficulty i was going to put us alongside america but it had to be done
right the whole point of the 20th of july action was to help persuade americans who are completely opposed to doing this. >> i do think it actually says this, i persuaded president wish to go down the un route. that was the thing that we're doing. by the way i don't believe they are ever humiliated and i don't think british -- i think british troops fought -- i think they did a magnificent job. >> again i think it was done in 2008 but in any event those decisions are incredibly difficult, most of, most of the attacks actually in the south were attacks on british troops that's why it was happening in baghdad.
deaths. >> if you withdraw the troops that would be difficult there is no need to search the british troops at that point as avi and correspond with the americans i think may or june in 2003 it iraq have of a shift in strategy in the major for example, and iraq was a country governing the other 80% and with the arabs praying happened to them to be subject to the same revolts as elsewhere.
en to identify the strategies because you get to a certain point and that had to be done that was done with courage. >> so you were more of that military action in that navy lead those capabilities to fall into the hands of terrorists were you warned about that before the invasion? so surely knowing that? >> that warning in to make
>> given that there was no imminent threat from saddam with the military buildup how was it that for the aftermath there wasn't enough helicopters or ied resistant vehicles in place? that is from iraq and afghanistan. >> i said we must not do that and i think you'll find the report says so both myself then gordon brown made it clear whoever was
requested should be clear. but i do have to say but we were absolutely prepared for the campaign to be brilliantly successful. one of which we succeeded and one of which we did not the other was to make iraq free and secure. they are fighting terrorism that we did not provide the security we're promised. >> into take legal action against you personally are they justified to do that? >> i stand by the decision that i touched and i explained that today.
sanders stand there acre and their concern but also they need to put themselves into my shoes at that time and why will never accept those troops to god entered the -- who were injured they ended up fighting for exactly the forces of extremism we see everywhere today. that is why even as they sympathize profoundly i cannot accept the implicit nature of the criticism that they died in vain i cannot believe three and a half thousand troops of different
countries have lost their life three and a half thousand going dated and day out. they were involved in that battle i will never except fighting that for a cause that was worthless or in vain for his. >> and still not clear perhaps you can talk about the specific things that say i should have done that but specific mistakes you being to have made. >> one thing that is important that it doesn't do that i have reproached myself is when you look at what we found common now if i was planning such a campaign it would be
external people linking up with those internal elements now there were scattered warnings that is the fundamental things that went wrong to make it absolutely clear those external elements in iran winking into lycia extremism and linking up with al qaeda and as we have discovered syria deliberately sending thousands to join in the insurgency across the border. that is something i think about the whole time and you learn exactly the same that
you get up problem that is the most ungovernable and it is important to learn the lessons of military strategy have do deal with that? unfortunately the report doesn't. >> that it was not justified to face prosecution. how do you feel about the labor party? >> the important thing is by the way there was no misleading of parliament to act in good faith that i believed in the intelligence i was given.
if i could show it of the documents sent to me in march of september tsa don't read the report and tell me if you would not have believed the risk is not really intends to develop a program. >> from the errors of planning and process. >> to the point that i was making earlier that it is the analysis of the conflict
of of possibility of internal elements but there are things that i think in retrospect would be better to have those papers presented for sure now you would approach the situation differently i you interact with the united states and i accept that as well. there are various process points to disclose the attorney general's advice and opinion doesn't have outlined the nature of the decision but i do think once you have done that you come back to the decision. >> you have expressed sorrow for what happened but then
you say on the fundamentals use the entire decision can uc why that explains why people don't trust to there is a rupture between the political elite that we have tony blair that says i feel your pain but fundamentally i did nothing wrong and if i may be said to understand what happened to understand the calculus of risk changed after 9/11 but we now know there was no link between this side -- saddam hussein and al qaeda but there was between al qaeda and some of the gulf arab states that you maintain strong diplomatic relationships with the neck you build your business. >> but i didn't. think about this.
there is no consistency to express my sorrow to those that have lost their lives but my regret and my apology for the mistakes that say the decision is right i understand people one me to say what i can that we should have taken a different decision and we should not have remove saddam hussein i cannot say that. so i am sorry if people find that difficult to reconcile but i spend so much of my time thinking about this issue and so much of my life
analyzing it i would be making a concession that i did not believe and i say when you look at this report for example, they say the iraq survey group. if that report is right, as sanctions have gone we would not have removed them surely i am entitled to say you have to tell me why that report is wrong or if not surely makes a difference urinalysis. >> also though links with saddam hussein it was never al qaeda where they argued
my cases when i express today that the tide that is still one of the biggest risks that we face if you allow the proliferation of ecological or technology but a falls into the hands of the terrorists. don't worry i made this decision 18 months after 9/11 and they could kill more people picking up on something you said just said to handle the relationship with america differently i think one of the things that people felt at the time and since is that looking at your credibly close relationship with george w. bush and frankly a lot of people look to george w.
bush and said this is out of antitrust and he seems incredibly gung-ho end e is just going along with him and in many ways is board now that you didn't have the influence that you thought you were having. what would you do differently? are you still in contact with george w. bush? du still speak? >> i am still in contact with all former presidents i have worked with. but where i talk about the relationship with the u.s. i mean very specifically i think in retrospect it is clear that i relied too much on the assurances that were given those problems have been well documented and
well analyzed when i was prime minister and i had that close relationship with clinton and with bush, it was important if i didn't have that closeness of a relationship i don't know the really depended to a large degree of my relationship with president clinton it with president bush we made a huge difference many parts of the administration did not want that. president bush with part of my prompting to commit to the palestinian state was the first to agree to publish the road map despite the government and in 2005
we have american commitments on africa and climate change but one of the things i believe about this country is in today's world it has to exert maximum influence and power you keep keep both relation strong and doing bad to have a much better ability with the national interest and as i say the majority of european nations were with us not just japan and is julia the majority of europe came with us and they say this in their report and i want to pick this up because i disagree they said france and germany have a
strong relationship their disagreements at the time was a problem for their relationship and the work hard to create that relationship and i do believe that the fight against terrorism it is necessary for on security. >> it with that reformation isn't coming back to the findings that it is a damaging legacy are their consequences?
>> first of all, when the allegations first surfaced that we falsified or improperly interfered with intelligence you may remember i was putting the government and myself in a position that they never had before being cross-examined cross-examined, giving evidence, there were five separate reports that foreign affairs committee it is actually there in the report we did not improperly influence that intelligence but be clear that allegation of trust goes very quickly into the allegation lying about the intelligence actually people are fair reading the report that
should be put to rest because that wasn't true but now on intelligence itself to one of the areas that i do agree with that people are better qualified to explain that we can learn the lessons from that to rely on the information i was given a wooden never criticize intelligence because they do a fantastic job. >> removing the phrase i will be with you given that you were warned is that
disingenuous it is not a of a blank check with the americans are absolutely clear if you read bill holden noted is clear is reset at one point i could be sure of the cabinet even if they were more concerned about was taken now. yes everyone was concerned but i was also concerned to make sure that at that crucial moment when i was right on the cusp the take a the route or not i need to make sure they take that route and they did and by
the way the increase does note that the conversation after that when it was made absolutely clear when they say it was a commitment is saddam complied we would not be in conflict but one of the things i ask people to look at it is absolutely clear there is never any intention if he was allowed to survive. >> you save understand how people view you given the shadow of iraq? >> that is up to them.
i think there is more understanding when your prime minister you have to make decisions the single most important it is critical and to be fair at no point either reses it other than what i gave the damages mir any other political leader the time you trust a politician the most will you do what is easy to take a decision that was hard and despite what they face and i thought about that decision really deeply and then go back over it all the time not a single
day goes by that i don't think about it but i come back to the right to remove them or not there is no third way and that is what i have to decide if they want to listen to anything else that i say that i cannot help that. >> back in 2003 you said history would be the judge of your decisions 13 years why is it easy to be rejecting some of those key findings? >> history will judge so let's be clear about this decision that is why i hope
in the head and i believe iraq will stabilize because my analysis of what is going on to get rid of sectarian religious politics and replace with pluralistic tolerance about the desire for rule based economies and that is what people are struggling for all over the middle east iraq had a chance today it has a chance so what history ends up deciding will depend of what happens in the future but i ask people to think about all over the middle east now what i find in the west people say it is better to
keep the dictators and power there is no stability your subject to brutal repression and that will not hold that is what the arabs praying teaches you so we move ahead of that. that is why when history looks back yes you can go to the states come back to the basic position that history will take a different view. >> today you stand by that decision to say it was right to maintain the relationship there were not committed to the invasion?
>> that is a very good country -- question. and for the potential of chemical or biological devices and how that would be different but i still think and it was after that it became the official policy of the american government of tensions of policy-making their policy was regime change or the security aspect i can be
>> him put themselves in your shoes as prime minister but would you still say that they are better off? >> let the iraqi speak some will say no but the will find a different perspective what is strange there was a statement put out to the president of iraq to say why he thought iraq was better off. chest and make the point within syria and iraq you have a government fighting the terrorist with what averred difficulty but the reasons are the terrible
attacks that is precisely because the iraqi government is gradually swede -- squeezing them backed so again that will develop over time people say what iraq is like a now i know from those many messages that i have received that some will strongly disagree and others say despite all the difficulties it is the right thing to do. >>. >> the key for taking all these questions to say they overestimated your ability to influence the decision
i agree in retrospect, mr. of formality i except that but it was impossible at the time as we discussed this literally and they were all detailed discussions. i was completely realistic with the iraqi mission but i thought it was important remember i go back my worry after 9/11 with a decided it would go on its own without the coalition if you have to go back to go back to that
atmosphere in one of the reasons why i wanted america to recognize as a strong reliable allies but if you have someone that is the long side you to build a coalition. but when it comes to iraq that they could have built it then. that actually constructed with the introspective those that he had to comply with in the americans did not want the resolution to let
them carry on with compliance it in the end we cannot get the agreement so i had real influence one of the difficult questions given they will be in these types of missions with military participation almost certainly the falklands is a set of circumstances the likelihood you are facing along with tackling your own territory is under the leadership of the united states where the islamist terror is an excess. that'd is inevitable to
right to say they have to sell all of the opposite decision and that is not decisionmaking. >> you seem more aid wished for received -- in english or relieved? >> people ask me about this all the time. to bring this issue to an end but it should put to rest some of the allegations in this is important that people can criticize me and
the decision but if people are being fair to read this report they should not from now one used good faith. >> thank you for being generous with your time to take a second question one of your big themes today is the multilateral institutions surely that vision crumbles before your eyes and is there not a part of you that thinks there is a disconnect between the politically beat the you not think we can trace that back to the 18th of march with the british prime minister took this country to war that diplomatically speaking had a few question marks but
nevertheless people saw that of the prospective and they don't trust you or your successors. >> that is the bit of a stretch to go from the european referendum. >> that question of trust in politics is another issue i think europe taking that decision in good faith was with them to take the decision and i said to you earlier they do what is the least popular because they
believe in it with that disconnect it has a lot of different aspects and dimensions. >> but if you are concerned that your prime minister took this on the provision they knew was false for reasons that had nothing to do to mistrust deeply then this report makes it clear with you agree or disagree we deliver those decisions and i stand by it today and they understand why they take a different point of view but i was elected prime minister at the time and i do believe ultimately it is
played superbly we wish themi all the best. i had meetings with ministerial colleagues in addition to my duties i shall have further such meetings today. >> mr. speaker it is not we were coming from the where you are going.er what yo >> does my friend agree that no matter what your background. >> i absolutely agree with my friend to make sure all citizens can make the mostst of their talents for the rest of the parliament as j.b. were discussing the importance of boosting
to make the most of the talent service to give people the of confidence in the life skills. >> i think today it would be appropriate to think of b those who lost their lives in recent days for thosee that have suffered that must be a terrible experience i think we should send solidarity to them. >> i joined with the prime minister to wish whales' well.will b along with everybody else. [laughter] mr. speaker there is life the shy but connally employ
the thousands of workers with well-paid unionized jobs today thousands of people work on those lines the vast majority of those contracts with the minimum wage is not even paid for the victims and also from dunstable as well. on the issue of what has happened new jobs in new investment net there is not only a minimum wage but a red-faal living wage. and i visited where there was one business there to
employ almost 5,000 people so if we try to hold on to jobs in industries other industries of the future. >> the problem is the minimum wage does not add up you must understand that northeast of schreiber up to the oil refinery and hundreds of oil workers are on strike as they were brought in on low wages to do the same job just down the road the average hourly wage is 12 powless 26 in the 9 pounds 13 is a time the government intervenes to step up to those communities that feel they were left
behind? >> we have intervened with those that don't pay the minimum wage for the first time to name and shame those involved but that real intervention is the economy this is investment and that is why record numbers as became a job on the prime minister one of the strongest of the g-7. so 1% of infrastructure investment is going to the northeast london is getting 44 more times to have a econlancing of our economy.
if yhe parts of our e economy it is the northwest and not the southeast exports are growing faster.first and with the proper strategy to invest in the infrastructure and the training and the skills to make a difference four years with a few jobs outside of london. >> because the investment in london is more than any other region combined so in march that government investment was cut to make
the fiscal rule. it can be balanced.alances in ts with their regional imbalances it is none other than the unemployment rate. so in terms of investment we need to have the governmentin hr invested and in the railways since victorian times. you can only invested you have a strong and growing economy. more borrowing and spending and debt trashing the achaean -- the economy. and let the shadow
chancellor ast i asked the prime minister is a key part to the fiscal rules we nownd know the deficit to be goneit tt by 2020 that is it time to admit that austerity is the investment of infrastructure in investing jobs. >> a always have flexibilityserf i will take his advice more seriously if there is any time in the last six years. and the government had to make difficult decisions i with 11 percent of gdp to under 3% this year.
and zero is on his own invention. frie and with the friend in the shadow. that is the program we have been advocating. house to the education work he has been doing in the house. and for all those places that think they were left behind and those with low wages and insecure employment. >> we would not seek toyment anv enough million or unemployment but the only
area that i think the with tman has made a a contribution is the biggest job creation scheme i havech ever seen in my life. and then had an opportunity to serve on the front bench. like the job creation them f. but it is a job creation and. >> with the collective decision making it to seek reassurance and that the
mistakes homemade will not happen again.essons will he ensure into be acted upon so there can never be a repeat. >> i am monarch -- grateful to my honorable friend to discuss the reports at the moment but to really learn the lessons for a future that he lays out quite clearly. but the most important thingd for us and that is considered that perhaps it is the best legacy from the whole thing.
and abroad it is also of a day of our thoughts about the loved ones. who also more and though loved ones. tony blair wrote to president bush to say i will be with you forever. of with the interview k service personnel in the hundreds of thousands of iraqis above their reasons of the war incoun iraq. >> the in terms of the report to discuss in detail
of all the things i will say in my statement but clearly we need to learn of lessonssave thousands of pages in for when we debate in the house. >> of the post conflict the u.k. did not achieve its objective but that lack of planning has been evidenced to libya with no plan whatsoever for brexit when will they start learning of the mistakes of the past? >> he is right about the failure to plan is very
clear he says with the invasion began it rested on the assumption of the authorized environment but the difficulties encountered could not have been known in the advance we do not agree that hindsight is required and is very clear at that point on iraq properly constituted meeting for national security all those things including the proper listening to experted vice what are designed to avoid the problems that the government had in the case of iraq. action there is no set of arrangements that can provide protection in any of
these cases with military intervention we can say if it is ever justified in that is difficult we should nbd that been any way for that arrangements because theren me n aren't. >> will my friend join me to congratulate what is under the control? >> swiftly looking to sort out the mass and would he agree that to be the alternative city of culture a mattere a burst of the economy? >> with those longstanding efforts and while the official city from the
>> thank you mr. speaker.er. as my right honorable friend will know there are with over 100 jobs has raised the need fom regeneration. would my right arm boyfriend tell me what support will be given so plans can be make an? >> first of all is what made the point that it's a sad moment for the dhs who have worked so hard for. it was a job, it was a way of life it was a means of preparing for their retirement and we must do all we can to help find them new work. there were many in the retail many v sector there were around 18 million so we should keep those up because keeping our taxes up are so vital but this is along the biggest. in england worth some 6.7 billion pounds in the next.
one of my constituents has fallen victim and their involvement at my office and it still remains housebound. will he rectify the --. >> i want to graduate the honorable lady for taking up his case. many of us have been done the same thing with constituents who have had assessments that haven't turned out to be accurate. if she does with the details i will look at this and see what can be done. >> a body created by this the nh government highlights are
pretended to hault the growing divide between the north and south to create 850,000 new jobw , 97 billion pounds of economic growth by 2015.wth does my right arm boyfriend a great debt to build our prosperity we need to continue to rebalance.ularly t my honorable friend is a sleigh >>de. what the report shows that we don't take the necessary actions are going to see continued divide and that is why we are committed to seeing increased infrastructure to 61 billion pounds and in my0% right honorable friend isle fris upgrading a big boost for the local economy. >> prime minister and met with a british citizen who has been in ethiopia for two years and he was kidnapped while traveling in
ethiopia. he was sentenced to death six years ago it at a trial that he was neither present at or able to present a defense whatsoever underage national law. given he has been given no legal representation prime minister in your final weeks in office we have finally demand immediate release and bring them home to be reunited with his wife and children in?children. >> what i can reassure the honorable gentleman about as we are taken a close interest in this case to the foreign secretary was in ethiopia recently. our counsel has been able to meet with mr. saggy on a number of occasions and we are working with him in the government to try to get this resolved.ment t >> one of the reports that it's getting so much attention is the cdc report which confirms -- why
is it a can summon the years know there has been -- too few.yours, too few consultants. we now have in place to buy plants for the right number of.yours and consultant to ensure constituents get the care they i think my arm while friend raises an important point which i do think the cdc is acting effectively e friend raised an important point that i do think the ctc is acting effectively getting into hospitals, finding that practice, reporting swiftly. we haven't announced the fact that as we should be. the practice is unacceptable. it's a change in government that we've been the ones that are set up the role to have a
zero-tolerance approach to to make sure things are put right. thank you, mr. speaker. the business innovations hills once the u.k. to buy or tens of billions of pounds to create a great britain found worth up to 100 billion. can i ask the pm whether this is a formal plan or merely an attempt to conjure a plan amid the u.k. government? >> we're spending billions of pounds on the british economy and investment have that dish automatically upon classes for scotland. clearly, my colleagues are in a leadership election and non-side of the house rather than unity. the never-ending -- [cheers and applause] i thought you wanted one. you don't want one? hands up who wants the leadership election. i'm so confused. one minute it is like the ego is going to swoop and the next
minute at the top of the ski job. in case you hadn't noticed, we are having a leadership election. >> right from the start, the united kingdom has been an outward looking trading union. the trade your -- >> the honorable gentleman is entitled to be heard and his constituents are represented. thank you, mr. speaker. and talking up the prospects for investment in the british economy. but can the prime minister said to make sure we attract as much trade and investment in possible? >> my honorable friend makes an important point and a clear instruction has done around the world, to the u.k. ministers are clear about this debris should be doing all we can to engage as hard as we can to the investment
we want to see in the u.k. businesses clear whether they agree or disagree with the decision the countries made, they've got to go want and make the most of the opportunities we have had thank you, mr. speaker. but the real prospects on the horizon, the author from the chance to his cunning classes, yet companies worry whether they will make a profit in the u.k., not how much tax they will pay on it. can the prime minister tell us what immediate action to government would take to protect people's jobs and likelihood right now? >> immediate action has been taken not least to encourage lending by changing the reserve asset ratios they insist on good that is very important because that's a short-term measure that can house the early effects. but the chancellor was talking
about is we are now in this new situation to make sure we can figure all of our policies to take it damage of the situation we will be a period that will mean changes to taxes, changes to the way the focus for the foreign office and business department. all the things we can make a start on irrespective of the fact she and i were on the same side as the referendum campaign. >> my honorable friend with the question, may i remind the prime minister that next-line the greatest airshow of the world takes place in my constituency to which all right honorable members are expected to attend. may i remind my right honorable friend that last time, two years ago, deals worth $201 billion were signed. he will encourage our members to attend.
>> i think i'm one of the first prime ministers in a while and i'm happy to announce i will be going back this year. we have the second-largest heiress a sinister in the world and it is a brilliant moment to showcase the industry to the rest of the world and clinched an important export deals in the military and civilian spaces. i would do everything i can in this job or future to support british industry in that way. thank you, mr. speaker. the u.n. committee on economic social and cultural rate expressing concerns that the government welfare cut, how much more international condemnation will it take for the prime minister discusses that? >> we've seen under this government many more people at work, many more household -- very few households where no one
works and fewer households where there are children. all of those have been a huge success. of course she has the opportunity now we've made some huge devolution proposals including the area of welfare if you don't think what we do on a u.k. basis. i don't know why you are all shouting. speed that thank you, mr. speaker. john chilcott is he on the people who come out of the 2003 invasion of iraq our servicemen and civilians. will the prime minister is look at how he can make sure that the transparency of scrutiny ahead of military action become the norm for his successor. >> i think we've now got a set of arrangement and also a set of conventions that put the country in a stronger position. it is now a clear convention that we have a vote in this
house, which we did before premeditated action. it's awesome word we have a national vote, legal advice, providing the house of commons as we did in the case of libya and iraq. these things are growing to be a set of conventions that will work for her country. let me repeat again even the last in the world doesn't mean you're always going to be confronted by easy decision around the don't have very difficult consequence is. thank you, mr. speaker. the dirt of my constituent polling but do not contract tb bola and 20 for teen. he had 200 other have not received an equivalent of
4000 pounds awarded to 250 public health english status. but the prime minister agreed to meet with me to discuss how i can write via the city? >> one of the greatest people i've ever met and it's a great privilege to have her come to number 10 downing street. i'm proud of the fact she and many others have received the medals were working in sierra leone, which is sent in britain should be incredibly proud of. we help you with ebola and it is now a bola three.
the senate continued on following the disturbance, passing the procedural motion 65-32. fbi director james comey testifies tomorrow on his recommendation to the justice department not to prosecute democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton for her use of a private e-mail server. he will speak before the house oversight and government reform committee and it starts life thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> last month ucla looked at the refugee crisis in europe. we will hear from two academics who spoke on international migration and later german diplomat to the united states will talk about how refugees are assimilating. together they are about two hours and 45 minutes. >> okay, good afternoon everybody.
i am roger walsinger a professor of sociology and that direct their of the center for the study of migration on behalf of a different center, the center for european congressional studies. i would like to welcome you to today's events on the refugee crisis perspectives on europe and beyond. as it happens this year the very first event organized by the center for the study of international migration was on this very topic. we had our first talk on september 25 and unbeknownst to us at that time september was the penultimate month in which the refugee flows to europe would rise and since then the flow has steadily diminished and at this point the point that it's begun to disappear from the headlines of the u.s. and western press. what we are not seeing is that the flow is continuing and the
same interval the flow to the west has diminished the number of refugees that have been registered in syria has grown by 800,000. so the refugee crisis unfortunately is very much alive and well and so to provide insight into that crisis and what might be done about it is that goal of today's session. i'm going to turn it over to asli bali is the director of the center for your pain studies who will introduce our speakers. >> thank you very much roger. first i would like to thank our co-sponsor the center for international relations, the center for near eastern studies in the center for the study of international migration. i would like to make two announcements. please turn off your cell phone
and second for for the q&a session we would like people to come on stage at this microphone this one, sorry, this one and please ask your question and please keep it precise in order to let everybody participate. it is my pleasure to introduce our keynote speaker gregory maniatis who is this senior fellow overseas. excuse me, have the wrong paper. gregory maniatis served since 2006 a senior adviser to peter southerland the u.n. special representative for migration. he's also a senior adviser at the migration policy institute in washington and a codirector of columbia universities global policy initiative. over the past 15 years
mr. maniatis has worked closely with the european commission state government european parliament and international organizations and civil society groups on all aspects of migration policy. he will comment on the european union, greece, russia migration and other topics and has been in many publications including "the new york times," the "washington post," "the wall street journal" and "new york magazine." earlier in his career gregory maniatis was a policy advisers to several governments and was a founder and publisher of odyssey magazine. he is a graduate of princeton university and is a member of the council on foreign relations. i will also introduce our discussants who is director of
the ucla center for near eastern studies and professor laure murat where she teaches in the law program. recent work includes -- lessons from religiously divided societies and negotiating non-corporation international law and mitigation in the iranian nuclear crisis. she currently serves as a editor and chair as the visor committee for human rights watch. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for the invitation
and to all of you for coming out to discuss what i think is a critical topic. it's not just about migration, it is about the state of europe and really i think the state of our democracy so if you don't mind i'm going to start off with a handful of points that i would like to really emphasize and then give you the state of play at the international level and at the european level in terms of what is happening and then suggest some ideas for how the european crisis could be less of a crisis and how the world could pull together to help the europeans and to help those who are in need, the 20 million plus refugees who are in the world today. i want to make sure leave you with three points that you will remember. if you only remember three points it would be -- first the
crisis started off the year ago as a humanitarian crisis. it evolved over the course of last summer into a political crisis in europe that have significantly undermined the european union, some of the fundamental tenets of the eu no longer hold the idea of open borders for instance that it has become even more than that. i characterize it as a generational threat to the post-world war ii liberal democratic order. so, for me what that says is addressing the refugee crisis in europe is not just a humanitarian issue, it's a strategic priorities for the united states and all that care about that post-world war ii liberal doma credit order. why is that? i think that is because the anti-migrant sentiment which has risen with veer off city in
europe is the cheap fuel that is propelling the authoritarian right, and the nationalistic right in europe. you saw today a very close call in austria but the far right candidate barely losing the presidency. that is not going to be an exception over the course of the coming years. you will see contested elections , contested by the far right in many european countries and you are also seeing the evaporation of the mainstream center which is the center that is held together the liberal democratic order over the past 65 years. and if that weren't enough you are seeing not only the decline of that center but you are seeing the rise of ideologies that challenge the liberal order
so you have in your ideologies that are not only native but that are foreign fueled. the obvious and important ones to keep in mind are wahhabism and -- where char present in europe. in the austrian election to give an example the far right freedom party advocates for adequate system for austria and europe between the u.s. and russia no longer the transatlantic alliance and in terms of wahhabism there have been billions in duck did in the european support of movements that preach a radical form of islam. there was an excellent piece yesterday in "the new york times" about the rise of wahhabism and isis in kosovo that is worth reading. if that weren't enough the millennials are another problem.
it's hard to say that in this room but if you just based on the polling data that we have, the dedication or the commitment of the millennial to the idea of democracy as compared to their parents and grandparents it has diminished significantly so post-world war ii and surveys you see that generation saying that seven in 10 of them say that democracy is essential. today at the millennial generation poles around 30% of the millennials say that democracy is essential. all those combined are very dangerous trends and that is why it is that the topic of this conversation but that is why migration is so important and the refugee crisis is so important. the second i would make is even though this crisis everyone is
looking west looking at the european union and saying why can't the european union get its act together? the syrian crisis is a global crisis. there's nothing in the geneva convention is as europe or turkey or lebanon or jordan should carry the weight of the burden of the displaced from the syrian crisis, 4.5 million refugees. it's an international crisis and unfortunately the community has been largely absent from this crisis. clearly the u.s. which has long been the back under that international refugee protection system has been absent too. the obama administration in the course of the past nine months during which it had promised to take in 10,000 syrian refugees
from the beginning of october through the end of september the commitment was 10,000 refugees managed to process only a thousand refugees from syria. during that same period the canadians lost 25,000 syrian refugees using the same standard that applies in the united states. they actually were cross-referencing the syrian refugee applications with u.s. databases there was no reason the u.s. has been absent. the question we have to ask is how do you muster a constituency of actors, states and other stakeholders who believe the refugee protections are actually important in the 21st century and that is i think a key policy and political challenge. so the third to remember is that in my view the way to counter the populace far right is obviously through political
action but principally through grassroots actions. you have had a lot of extraordinary action by individuals, ngo's church groups and others and on the island over the course of the past year there have been over 50,000 volunteers that have come to help those refugees who came to shore there. for the first time in my work on migration basically of 16 years actually showed the private sector does not involve itself but it's been there. companies from linked in to ikea to the banks have weighed in today think it's because they saw that the crisis was destabilizing the political system and business above all one stable political system in
which opry. it's our -- if there was a single goal to happen that action i would argue is to educate refugees. you mentioned the decrease in the flows to europe. they haven't really decrease that much relative to last year. they have decreased relative to last fall however something has increased which is the number of children. the number of children arriving, the proportion of children the flow to greece have been 38% significantly higher than last year to 22% have been women so 60% are women and children arriving in greece and is worth keeping in mind that having large numbers of uneducated children in the middle east and europe the threat to america's
national security interests. so, those are my three points and i will give you a quick sense of what the picture looks like. for those of you who are not fully immersed in the refugee crisis at the moment to tell you what the numbers are like out in the world. so today we have about 21 million refugees in the world official figure in 2014, it was 20 million is now closer to 21 million. i'm not going to bombard your data but i will give you food points that are interesting to the situation. in 2010 there were roughly 10,000 people who were displaced every day from their homes around the world. in 2012 the number increased to 23,000 people displaced every day on average from their homes. in 2014 the number doubled again
to over 40,000 people being displaced from their home so you can see the magnitude of the problem is growing and there's not a lot of science that that's going to decrease. i mentioned the importance of children and their education. half of the refugees, half of those being displaced today our children and half of these children who are displaced are not in school and they go for a long periods of time not getting an education and in fact in the retracted the refugee situation in the camps places like kenya there is nothing beyond primary education, if that. there are a host of new players in the world of refugees as well the number one new player is turkey which now hosts more refugees than any other country. lebanon is the biggest per-capita host of refugees.
has 232 refugees for every 1000 residents. you don't hear much about lebanon in terms of lyrical agitation. by comparison hungary has seven refugees are 1000 hungarians. numbers don't matter in that respect. 97% of the refugees in lebanon but below the poverty line to give you a sense of how it is they are making do their and 87% in jordan also lived to love the poverty line. i mentioned earlier there are 20 million refugees so there are 60 million plus displaced. most of those are internally displaced. of the 20 million that were refugees in 2014150000 will return home, 150,000. something on the order of 70,000
were taken kind from countries of first asylum which are typically developing countries that typically in urban areas. 70,000 were able to resettle in countries that were wealthier like the united states or canada or europe. basically you are talking about 20 million refugees of whom may be 200,000 every year are able to really start rebuilding their lives in security, so 1%. in europe to give you a sense of proportion here there were 219,000 refugees, sorry 219,000 asylum seekers across the mediterranean to reach her up in 2014. last year that number went to a million. as of today the mother of those who cross the mediterranean, is still fairly early in the season is almost up to that number from
2014, 219 been in about 200 now. 1100 people were saved in the last 24 hours crossing the mediterranean 300 off the shore off the coast of italy so the numbers continue to rise daily. previously the historic highs from the crossing across the mediterranean was 70,000. you are talking about a major increase and sure the numbers have fallen for now because of a deal between the eu and turkey but they will exceed by far the numbers of 2014. i should also point out the nature of -- there are lots of things that are different today than when the european convention agreed in 1951. you can talk about technology and climate change demographics and all those things are different today but i would
suggest maybe the most important differences that in 1951 and since world war ii, government locks their dissidents into their country. those countries from which produce refugees generally were countries that didn't want those refugees to leave. today the countries from which refugees originate want them to leave and not only do they want them to leave for political reasons to get rather their political opponents but many groups like isis are profiting from human mobility and profiting from smuggling. the numbers in europe last year conservatively are estimated to be about $6 billion generated from smuggling refugees and migrants into europe. they are a big part i would suggest they go to those in
power. let's put it that way. that's the big picture. i should have mentioned to put europe into perspective which is that 86% of refugees are in the developing world, not the developed world so that developed world is a tiny fraction of refugees and when it's given more as it was last year it kicks and screams. it's hard to understand if you are here or anywhere really how what went wrong last year in europe. there was a cascade of and confidence in political -- frankly that led to what should have been a fairly manageable crisis yet there were 547 or at peak times 8000 people arriving on the greek island every day. like -- why couldn't the
european nations feed the people and take care of them? you have to i think ask yourself that question. it's clearly not because they are not capable of it. if there were an earthquake you would have had a massive response from the international community. you can take care of half a million people displaced by natural disaster to have the political will. why didn't europe have the political will? i would suggest that europe over the past 10 years has been greatly weakened by three crises come the first one which you all know which was the 2008 financial crisis which took the strongest expression which is still with us today being negotiated. so that was the first sign that agreement wasn't going to be her reached amongst the 28 eu
members. the second crisis that has strained relations amongst the eu states was the 2014 invasion by russia of ukraine and that was preceded by the russian invasion of georgia. those two invasions divided their opinion and then comes along the refugee crisis and again states aren't able to come together and have a solution that is a common european solution. those three crises express i think the fundamental weakness of the eu today so until those crises came about the eu was more or less able to continually pull together closer and closer. they produced reams of regulations and agreements which for the most part were not controversial for the european public trading comes the financial crisis and the issue of sharing your financial future
together and that caused tension. along comes russia subsequently and you have to have a common foreign-policy which the eu is not particularly good at and the russia tensions underscored as i mentioned earlier the far right in europe close to the kremlin and argues for acquiescence between the u.s. and russia. that is a challenge i think of the u.s. and others and we need to think hard about how is it that the far right in the far left have strong relationships with the kremlin and? and third is the refugee crisis the migration crisis and that strikes at the core issue of identity. in fact the refugee crisis is more important than the other two crises because while there were some question of debate around the european dinner
tables that they were corrupt or lazy it didn't inflame passions except between greece and germany. the refugee crisis absolutely inflamed passions at every dinner table in europe and i would like to just explained one basic tractable i have about understanding immigration public opinion and that is that you shouldn't divide people into pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant or pro-refugee and anti-refugee. i think that's misleading a pretty one -- pretty much anyone has the potential to be pro-and anti-and that is what causes sharp swings in public opinion. fairly easy especially to swing in one direction or the other and we have seen that in the united states. you have to be very sensitive to a broad range of opinions when it comes to immigration. that gives you a sense of the backdrop of why was so hard to generate agreement within the eu
on the refugee crisis and then you also had another factor which was that solutions kept being proposed that were not comprehensive. they were silver bullet solutions. a year ago if we had been gathered here we would have been talking about the mediterranean military mission in the central solidity or was the problem and the eu high commissioner proposed to the u.n. that there should be, the u.n. doors military mission to disrupt the business model of the smugglers. a month later that planet dissipated because in fact the flows had switched from bolivia to turkey to greece and the whole premise of that was that libya was a failed state in that's why we at the refugee crisis that evaporate. turkey was not a failed state
and it was a major source of refugee flows for the rest of the year. then we have another big grand plan which involves relocating that asylum-seekers from italy to the rest of the european union and the rest the european union was kicking and screaming about the plan but they agreed last summer to relitigate 120,000 asylum-seekers from greece to the west of year. in work so well. there were a few hundred who were relocated into march of this year but then the eu reed doubled its commitment and in mid-march said they were going to relocate 20,000 that asylum-seekers from greece to the rest of europe by the middle of may. that was in march and out the -- 3000 -- have been moved at that time but it's funny because it
is exactly those kinds of failures, the chaos you saw last summer on the greek island that announced grand plans out of major deals, major agreements that don't get delivered that people look around and say why should we believe you anymore? why should we believe the mainstream parties can do anything and that is the legacy and the backdrop against which you are going to see elections unfold over the coming year. i think the first one obviously will hopefully not go on an anti-eu's direction but there are several that will go on an anti-eu direction. by way of reminder there was also in africa summit eu africa summit in november you might recall. it was supposed to also address the problem and then the big one was the deal that the eu cut with turkey on march 18. that was to take affect effect on march 20. we can talk about that in due course.
that has not gone as planned either on many levels. there was ice's attempt to come up with a big deal that would solve the problem and in fact the problem is much more complex and requires action in the universal front. so what would those funds look like? it's actually not such a difficult challenge and the first question we have to ask is why did not europe and the international community do what would have prevented the crisis last year which is to support the countries where the refugees were living. just to give you a sense of comparison last year the eu individually and collectively in individual countries in the eu spent between 30 and 40 euros to deal with the crisis once it reached the shore. had the eu i would propose spent 10 billion at the beginning of leicester on turkey lebanon and
jordan they would not have been a crisis. to give you another point of reference the german government alone has budgeted now $106 billion to integrate the refugees that it expects, that it has today and will come to see her next year so germany alone will spend something in order the order of $120 billion and yet this wouldn't have happened, at least not anywhere near the scale which it did have the international community in europe supported turkey and lebanon and jordan. that's one of your answers, is to actually support the countries in which refugees find themselves. we are nowhere near that today. it will not come up on generating significant amounts of funding for refugees. so the second i think that europe has to accept in the rest
of the world has to accept is essential to take refugees from the frontline countries to the wealthier countries in the world. i would imagine there were 70,000 refugees resettled on average over the past two years. the number needs to go higher. needs to go up to half a million in order to have a reasonable and fair share of responsibility for refugees and the european could have taken half a million refugees last year in an orderly way from turkey jordan and lebanon doing health securities and security screenings and other screenings and i think the american public would have accepted that. maybe it would have been 300,000 reported thousandth at what they didn't accept was a chaotic scene of people coming onto the shores potentially isis terrorists but certainly not in any way that befits a 20th century developed continent. in fact i will mention something
that was said friday in an eu meeting of ministers where representative from luxembourg ascending europe now of their sickest and weakest and least useful syrian refugees and that's really the position which the europeans have gotten themselves into. so that is the third thing that we should be able to process refuse to be -- refugees outside of developed countries. when 65 years since the refugee convention was signed. there is still no international capacity for processing an application. every country has to do it itself. that is a very odd thing to hear but it's true. canada when the trudeau government came in on october 4 is that it was going to bring 25,000 refugees in four months.
had to bring 500 of its own staff principally to jordan in order to set up operations that could screen refugees and bring them to canada. there is no international capacity to do that. so i will not go into any new details except to say that clearly things that europe could have done last year, pointed out that all of those were european solutions to the problem. really those are the same things at the international could and should do. they should be a reasonable fare cost to sustain refugees in the countries they find themselves in. we now raise probably something on the order of $4 per refugee per year. that number has been the order of three or 4000, 10 times what we pay and if we don't do that
they will do what they did lester which is to go across the mediterranean and costs 10 times as much as it would be for at least five times as much as it would be in the country where they were first given refuge. not to mention the political costs that have been incurred over the past year in the form of divide of the far right and the economic cost of closing the borders. they are a countries in europe that of close borders. that system of burden sharing of responsibility sharing for refugees which i think most people would presume exists, doesn't exist and that challenge of developing a system by which the international community selectively takes response ability and before a crisis strikes or before a crisis spirals out of control develop a plan to address the crisis i think is the biggest challenge we have internationally right now. thank you.
[applause] >> those were just a fascinating set of reflections and i think our two axes on which one may proceed on asking questions. one story you told us about the european union and what's been happening in the european union and the other side is migration and the way those two things converge. i thought i would start by asking couple questions about just how you assess that liberal democratic commitment in post-world war ii order because you give us an account was the last 10 years of represent a crisis that crisis has been driven by financial crises and aggression on the russian part and this minor crisis which leads to unraveling. you also tell us that the numbers and the scale of migration that came to european shores was highly manageable.
had there have been a the political will and had there have been the resources even if you didn't say that that's something one could reasonably argue. with the economy that collectively the european union has one could imagine a rational way of addressing something like that without treating it as another crisis in the way that was treated and without having to panic projection. it seems to me there might via deeper set of explanations for the crisis that europe is facing that go beyond the one to you mentioned or we could add to your list. i just want to debut a couple questions around that. first european expansion. around the same time you are tracking you also have not just the extension that preceded the crisis but its full implications and terms of consensus-based decision-making that one could argue a greater challenge is russia's aggression towards ukraine in crimea but the community committee was able to
weather that crisis more rationally with stewardship and leadership at the center of the community was different at that time literally in the geographic map that are represented and similarly you mentioned the kremlin has an appeal to the far right in europe. i wonder if that is correct across the board and cynically true for the ride in the uk in austria or the closer you are to the relevant zone of expansion. [inaudible question] wonder how that impacts whether there is a deeper set of questions here and i will add one thing to that. the question says the crisis of liberalism seems like it might be deeper than the three elements that you describe but the flipside of your story is what is the price of which that commitment can be maintained with an order for europe to remain in the -- a certain strategy is required either by paying money or directing funds
outside of libya in turkey and other places. the flipside is was europe's commitment shallow or deep in what made them premised upon a certain capacity to keep at bay crises that have been plaguing the world well before 2015 the syrian crisis alone in the five-year civil war. it wasn't framed that way. people have moved in a particular way but the price of pushing problems out maybe the flipside of maintaining that liberalism in which case is that of an indictment of liberalism we are speaking of them that may stop there? >> is that it? >> not it actually. >> let me see if i can go deeper than that even. i think that you have to or several major factors. one is in equality and
inequality within the eu but inequality between the eu and neighboring regions. obviously between germany and greece that have tremendous tensions. sorry, is this on? the same inequality is a major force. the question of europe's capacity to defend itself is another major factor post-world war ii. you see now i think finally emerging over the course of this past year or two is the sense that europe has to have its own born defense and when we say europe this context we mean germany. that is slowly changing in d.c. germany being willing to weigh in militarily and on the foreign-policy stage even two years ago i would challenge was not foreseeable. so expansion, 20 countries 20
people 28 anything around the table trying to agree on anything but especially thinks are important is very hard. those are a think the deeper forces that are challenging europe. the question is could you have solved any of these? you mentioned syria. i think bikers ago we knew that this is going to happen. five years ago we had a really good sense that syrian refugees would end up in europe. the proximity would for one lead to that conclusion but there a lot of family relationships between syria so we knew in 2011 that syria could reduce a large number of refugees for europe. but the question of whether the european union was able with united states to do something about this obviously turkey has been a big factor here as well. so i think there are certainly
deeper tectonic forces at play but even still i think that with as you say the political will is a term i find distressing. i don't know where you find the political will. i believe you constantly hear political leadership because that's ultimately -- the leadership doesn't come from people is from prince and spring is not going to come from politicians exposed to public opinion so that political leadership in the context of this crisis will have to come from everyone but politicians are you just keep that thought in mind and it has. that's extraordinary thing that hasn't enabled us much as it could have. i will give an example. it's not just volunteers that i mentioned earlier in greece but mayors of cities. if you look at where the action is right now in europe in terms
of problems that set the municipal level. in fact i think the mayor of athens to start to negotiate with mayors of other cities barcelona which has been proactive on this issue has been talking and taking refugees directly from athens to barcelona and if you generate political bill as an example you can even do a turkey. if you generate the political will at the municipal level to share refugees portugal is a country that has come up and is willing to take more of its fair share of refugees the national government will have a hard time saying know. ..
>> migration is the messier side of globalization. it is incomplete because it creates such a tremendous reaction domestically when it is not managed well. i would contest but i think the european union which takes -- there's 3,000,000 migrants in the e.u. in an average year, half of half of those come from outside the e.u. those are not refugees, those are just people moving in and out with visas, temporary workers, students, and others. those are manageable numbers, one and a half --3 million. if you added another half-million refugees a year you could handle them. why didn't it happen is the question? >> amongst your proposal is the
notion of shifting resources to the places that are already housing many the refugees. of course that is partly part of the e.u. turkey deal. it illustrates some illustrates some of the challenges of contemplating thanks the idea that for billion-dollar euro to turkey would help offset some of the cost of refugees. it would take it temporally dollars for one year if you're to take those countries you named it turkey, lebanon and -- combined and 4 billion itself has been controversial. that is a challenge. buys sort of way of responding to that you said if germany is planning to spend 160 billion to accommodate those that is now coming in or in order to assimilate them then asserted
disproportion between the two investments is lost. but one might respond to that by saying that his money germany is injecting into its own economy and indeed the refugees are projected by the european union to increase the gdp of the general matter. the political logic of building will around spending money at home even if it is to house refugees as opposed to spending money outside i think it is something one has to puzzle through and thinking about the solution. on the flipside it sort of returns me to the question of outsourcing of problems. if the idea is let's just send money to the places that are frontline at some level, i i wonder how greece and italy would respond to that approach by the e.u. periods of the e.u. were to say we're going to transfer a lot of funds but these prisons cannot travel beyond greece and italy they must stay in greece and italy, but we'll fund them, whether not the public in that country would be excited to embrace that deal and why turkey, lebanon or jordan would think differently. witnessing a moment in the same week that the european union called upon greece to do a much more effective job of managing its borders or face mandatory closure by the european union
while at the same time calling on turkey to open its border syria because of incredible crisis that they are facing it is a moment of real difference finally because you're asking one country to taken tens of thousand, hundreds of thousands of people on principal ground while you are instructing the country within your own community to raise up its wall as high as possible, precisely for fear that those ways of people may continue into europe. against that backdrop want to press the idea that financial solution is one that would actually help us address the challenge that we're facing in system today. >> so i think if you asked those refugees in turkey, jordan and lebanon and financial support would make a difference to them i think their answer would be be us and they would not really engage in an debate. they would say you can have a normative debate and give us that money for healthcare, schooling so we can get jobs. so there is no question financial support to those
countries on the frontline is appreciated most above all those who is going to receive it in the end. whether it is sufficient is another question. in greece right now you're seeing the situation i just spent a week there ten days ago, the situation where the rest of the e.u. has said we are not opening up our borders to refugees in greece and we are not giving financial support that you need in order to deal with them. so you have neither of those that you need which is a borders and financial support or more open borders. but look, there is a logic when people move that the first-order business is to get them out of harm's way. so it is not equivalent to say well turkey has its border closed or were asking turkey to open its borders even though our borders are closed it's not the same thing because turkey as you know considers itself correctly
as a fairly welcoming place for refugees, to an an half-million refugees. but by closing its border to syrian they are putting the syrians into harm's way. your post in the port is to turkey are having some controls there to not put refugees into the same kind of harm that you and create by closing the turkish borders, fair enough to say, right question? the second point is that there is a reason apart why refugees staying countries it with border conflict zones because they're more comfortable there. typically if you're leaving syria and are in jordan and lebanon you have a fairly common culture. so it is much easier reach than going to portugal, hungary, poland. so there is a logic to not going evenly out into the world to be clustered near complex owns. the question i think that you have to ask is what is a reasonable level of support so that those refugees in those
complex owns can have a chance at a decent life there while the conflict unfolds? or until the conflict and so they can return home. we have not provided that first level of support, that level of support that says to jordan, here is the funding you need to include these refugees in your communities and in your schools, in your healthcare system and in your labor market. once you do that you'll get a sense of how many people are unsatisfied with that and how many, how much support is needed by the countries that are hosting them. you mentioned germany prefers to spend money in germany on refugees then perhaps send it out. i'm i'm not sure i agree with you. it is a difference of logic, the cost of the past year for germany and the lives of the aft and that cost of border closures
in that general reputation costs for europe, i do not think is less than i think it was less than 6 billion that they offered turkey, i think it's lesson that clearly it would've been a decent proposition to supply the funding to turkey and another series of reasons why those funds have not gone over there yet. by that same logic is it even better if you or jordan to get 10,000,000,000 dollars from the international community to spend locally in order to double the infrastructure that you need in jordan. it's a very complex formula as you know. there's a lot of political logic, there's a lot of political logic to dealing with the situation more locally. >> i'm going to ask one last question that will open up to the q&a. my last question is returning to the idea that this represents more of a normative crisis to the system than to just the idea that it can be addressed through including processing and some so
on. the idea that the model of refugee was at the end of world war ii and what we're talking about now in terms of preparation displacement certainly these are populations extremely vulnerable that face near certainty of harm and potentially torturing the the countries they are fleeing. but the numbers that profile and so on begins to blur the line between refugee and migrant. in ways that at least somewhat argue required number to every thinking of whether or not we have to commit ourselves to the very narrow way of thinking of refugees or whether viewing the impending changes that you talked about and the fact of state failure, the unraveling of a system that held together sort of appellation controls combined with globalization, whether all of this is priming us for a time to rethink the way we manage migration as a whole. obviously you're situated very well to think about these kind of questions and to try to offer some answers to these. i believe
you know better than i that the court has found that the mechanism that u.s. put in place for processing increase fails to meet the basic requirement of the 1951 convention in part because the court finds that turkey doesn't represent the same country that nearly opened its border and enabled the people to be saved, there are many other pressures on the way in which this convention intersects with this a particular crisis in this crisis is just one of many others, get as you noted 60 bone people not all of them are from syria, and indeed major crisis that go far less attended to in africa or on the great lakes it, vic kenya and the turkey deal and so on suggest that there's possibly an argument here for a broader rethink and i wonder what your thoughts are on that question. >> it's a good question, 51 convention has been contested by at least two european leaders and the da'esh prime minister had openly question whether it
should be applied today. it is not a static document size you know what was originally defined as a refugee, those fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution has been expanded by the courts over the course of the past few decades. and that allows of her as was syria at this point, syrians venturing in jordan for instance are not adjudicated individually to have a well-founded fear persecution there given a basically blanket protection because they are fleeing conflict and dangers to their life which is not a well-founded fear persecution. effective 51 agreements on that convention and that definition look very different today than it did back then. the question is whether or not there is political and public support for an expanded definition of who deserves protection of some say have gone too far and that the refugees
are too many and they do not fit the original definition. there are others who argue that the whole new category of fleeing gang violence in central america or economic destitution that threatens their lives or natural disaster who should fall under the refugee convention. there are some courts here there that take up these issues. if we let the courts decide that is going to give fodder to those who say there should be a democratic or popularly decided issue. so i i think the real deficit is political at this point as it is normative so why are people fearing persecution and fleeing economic destitution. why is it in our interest in the international community to offer them kind of protection whether it is permanent protection or a
different time. i think we need to go back to that question. try to answer that question from the perspective of 2016 from the perspective of individual. in order to rebuild support from scratch for something that feels this and many contacts. what was relevant back in post-world war ii era with millions of jews who had just died and others who had died with millions of people still essentially homeless around europe in the late 40s and 50s. there is a need to settle that problem. the problem looks very different from that problem too many people at least. you go back to political argument and see what you have to's the same to publics around the world in defending the need for protection for those fleeing different contacts. >> so that will go to questions.
problems. people in jordan are in camps and they don't want to be there. they don't wanna live and basically these refugee camps turns out more like concentration camps. and there really is a lot of people who are trying to find anyway to make a a living and don't have any resources at all. but their route through lebanon cannot collect this garbage. some just questioning to what extent all of this infrastructure is going to develop even if you dropped billions of dollars in there, where will it go. so meanwhile while that is developing you have all these millions of refugees and i will stop there. [inaudible]
[inaudible] >> i think the most important development has been that we have reevaluated in the past two years the international protection system and the way in which we take care of for a quote refugees and the care and maintenance model of taking refugees and sticking them in camps. where their last 15 or 20 years with children and grandchildren being born. i think that we are seeing a consensus move away from that. i think that is but one of the results of the past year. this model is no longer seems to be valid and we are moving toward a model including refugees in society which means they're going to be living in cities,
towns and villages. now that the camps for the most part. that's turkey has only about 10% of refugees in turkey are in camps at the moment. that is one good thing that is happen. you don't need to -- on another level there is a parallel conversion to humanitarian and development communities the humanitarian system is meant to address refugees, refugees tend to fall into crisis category and so you don't really look at refugees as a long-term issue, but long-term issues tend to be taken and addressed by development community and development agencies, the development money in the world is something like ten times the amount of the humanitarian money. i think what we are seeing now is at least the beginning of the conversation
that says we should no longer look at refugees is just people who need immediate relief and care packages and to be fed, they need to be the target of development aid to. we need to think about them in the context of national plans that the community supports and they need to be part of labor markets and educational training more generally. i think that is a good thing. >> this question of what would we do with the money coming from lebanon and i think it's a very legitimate one. it is what i hear typically in response to whatever i say we should've spent the multiple of money in those countries. but. but isn't that what the international humanitarian development systems are meant to address? they don't. so the question is why have after decades of development work why are we unable to effectively and efficiently dispense the eight insignificant of a significant scale. sometimes it's domestic and i think there should be a much
more robust international effort to be able to take a country like lebanon and be able to help lift it up. if if we can to that in lebanon or jordan or turkey, what is the point of sustainable development goals and the object of trying to address what we call the root causes of migration and refugees. we cannot do it in the countries that are an acute crisis where we have the greatest interest, were not going to be able to do it elsewhere for a lot of immigration flows are now originating. >> i was wondering if it is possible to broaden the geographical base of what we are thinking of and think outside the box. has international community are the people that are bearing this brunt thought of engaging the oil-rich countries of qatar,
buttering, saudi arabia for example, the possibility to solve the whole crisis of the population. if it's not done why not? >> so that is another good question. the saudi say that they are host to over 600,000 syrians right now. right now. they do not call them refugees because the saudi's are not with the refugee convention nor what they give you them refugee protections. but they would give them something better which is inclusion in their labor market. some of those syrians are for the outbreak of conflict, many of them hundreds of thousands reportedly came after we have no way of really knowing, other countries in the gulf have given significant amounts of money to syrian relief refugee and internally programs but you're right, they don't don't typically take letter refugees.
that is a challenge in the gulf countries more generally they don't want to see essentially arab refugees because there is the risk for them of trying to integrate over the long-term and that is not to the liking of most of the gulf governments. they want want migrant workers who will not have any claims permanently on their sovereignty. >> historically refugees have never been resettled instantaneously or miraculously. because our president is in vietnam at the moment i will use vietnam as an example. the war in vietnam was over in the mid- 70s, 1975 in the early '90s i was in the outer islands of the philippines they have a lot of unsettled that or
just likes suspects were not think they so 1992 i was i gave differently where there is vietnamese refugees and i was made to understand that indonesia had the same that the seven years after the war and you have also mentioned the post-world war ii europe, most people waited approximately five years only kilometers away from the car, only a few kilometers away from nonoaud, host host countries have always taken the prerogative to cherry pick to
bring ms. into the present day why do we expect instantaneous resolution to refugee issues that are not just the syrians could i just say that if we could just have the questions that are the point without long practices going forward. >> so it's a good point but post-world war ii europe was devastated, economies were in shambles, today we are far wealthier, where far wealthier that are in the context of the well but even back in 1956 just to take one example 200,000 hungarians displacing their resettled all over the world in
a few months. throughout much of europe and other places. one of the obvious driving forces of that was the ideological battle between the west and the soviet union. there's a will will to try to address those who i think the vietnam example is another good one because the peril between vietnam today back then there displacer many years but today syrians have been displaced as i mentioned there hundreds of thousands of kids and searching for a solution also often takes a lot of time. the the difference in vietnam as there was a international response and effort with 17 countries if i'm not mistaken who over the course of years developed a calm prehensile plan of action.
today, after the searing conflict for a half-million refugees, there's no international plan. there is not even a table at which the stakeholders are sitting to say syria is an international problem and the refugee problem that comes from syria is a national problem what solve it. there is obviously been peace talks but there has never been, since 2,011,011 a single meeting of a major international actor which you think the u.s. administration might call her the un might call for someone will call to say let's figure out what we do this for a half-million refugees. we did it with vietnam, we didn't do it with syria.
>> some questions require some context, others don't, mine doesn't, thank you. so my question is, i keep on reading the word children and hearing that from you today too. i have not yet heard the definition of who decides at what age is a child and what age is not. it is very confusing. thank you. >> that's is very confusing. thank you. >> that's a good point. i could give you some i don't have in front of me the breakdowns but i can assure you that we are not talking about 17-year-olds alone. >> what are we talking about? >> were talking about the range of kids from zero to 18. that's what you're talking about her were not talking about 18 -year-olds. >> were talking zero to 18, 18 is a cut off. >> correct. >> and the majority are 18, 1716, five and six? >> i would not want to make a claim, but the numbers are over that spectrum. in jordan at any given point i think there's 600,000 searing refugees at any given moment
there's 15000 women who are pregnant. so the numbers being born fill out the lower years but the kids region, the searing children are reaching europe are fairly evenly spread across the spectrum. the afghan unaccompanied minors reaching europe tend to be older and tend to be in the 12-18-year-old bracket. that is definitely the case. for some reason they have a tendency to go to sweden. the sweden has something like 30,000 unaccompanied minors, they have to contend with that. the majority of that is afghan. >> warmer question, who decides what the age range is? who decides it's 18? >> so that's a question if they say they're 18 of 18 is that what you saying? >> know about the age range, wise it 18 instead of 16.
>> so why hasn't the un actually created an international speakers organization and how much would it cost? >> why hasn't the un? there is the un refugee agency which was created along with the 51 convention to address the european problem. but it sits and relies on individual countries actually having their own capacity to determine who is in a silent seeker and to have their own capacity to actually address the needs of protection who needs -- it has grown a lot over the years, today's about 3,000,000,000 dollars. that is
money that goes principally to help countries that do not have the means himself to undertake the process of adjudicating asylum claims and then supporting refugees in those countries. not all countries except, they don't allow its work to do in turkey because turkey has its own. but you can make the case that there be a much bigger effort to have an international set of standards that are more rigorously applied with respect to the application and then also standards when somebody receives protection in a country there should be common standards that are implemented with access to schools and access to education, want to go in that direction it becomes a much costlier proposition than keeping them in camps for 20 years. we have not funded that. >> i agree with you that there
are certain factors that come into play, finances, the politics politics of the e.u., and giving up sovereignty or decisions that have to be made in groups, but isn't for this particular crisis maybe overriding issue or very important one that really has not been addressed specifically is that it is a muslim population that most politicians today, governments today around the world u.s. not easily assimilating into their general population and if it was a million canadians trying to get into europe it could be handled in a far different way. >> that is so true on some levels, it is absolutely clear that there is a cultural difference.
you could've said the same thing with jews pre-world war ii. i'm not quite sure. [inaudible] >> there is no question that the it is more difficult to integrate muslims into europe, that's a contention that has helped fuel the support for the post justice and for the freedom party, the notion that muslims are fundamentally incompatible. there's 2 pounds of that. one is that they are already a very large muslim community in europe so europe has to have a way to figure out how to coexist with a pluralistic system.