tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 7, 2016 6:00am-8:01am EDT
from breaking the middle east. and this is is not an international problem, there is many countries that are not refugee hosting states or refugee producing states. only 20 countries that accept any refugees through the resettlement program. most of the 193 members care more about migration, we have not talked about that very much. they came about migration. they care more about migration and having an international system of migration that works better than the current one than they do about refugee issues. >> unfortunately this is going to be the last question. >> thank you so much for the interesting talk. >> reporter: question is twofold but i will keep it short. what in your opinion is the role of the u.s. in this crisis and what should the u.s. be doing, what could they be doing better? what would would your advice be to activists and people living in the u.s. and germany, i would
be be interested in knowing what one could do here living here how we could promote and create more political will to move things forward in the u.s. as well. >> that's a great question. in terms of activists i think that people are coming up with creative ways to be involved. in germany you have a tremendous number of, thousands of individuals, tens of thousands who have played a significant role in how germany has received refugees from refugees welcome witches which tried to match families and individuals that wanted to support newcomers to give them a place to live and to help them in some cases. i think they're called the godfathers. who helped support financially syrians in germany who want to bring family members over. they
came up with a way way to essentially put pressure on the german government to allow for family reunification by saying we are willing to privately pay for the cost of bringing in family members of those were already here. i can go on about the number of creative things done in germany. but those programs in german museums in berlin, that train refugees to become to her guides and to give tours of german museums to other refugees and to try to tie together the history of europe in the history of the middle east and to give them a sense of belonging and a sense of integration and participation. there is dozens of incredibly great things that have happened. i think in that context the most important single idea is this notion of private sponsorship. that is the backbone of the canadian ability to take so many refugees. the canadians will take 50000 refugees this year, as i
mentioned from october to february they took 25000, about 40% of those are supported by canadians. so there could be at church groups or in a group of five people are more in canada can go into a database and offered to sponsor a refugee which means they pay part or all of the cost of integration for the first year. they're the people and the united states, there's a wealthy businessman in york is offered to support 3000 syrian unaccompanied minors. we have not been able to figure out how that program can get started in the united states because of opposition from congress. because of complications with local laws that have to do with foster care and so on and so forth. they should not be insurmountable problems. i think generating grassroots support for sponsoring refugees and helping them integrate into communities is the number one thing i would focus on.
actually a lot of americans who wanted to do that have rather than invest here because the laws don't allow us to have privately sponsored refugees have been supporting refugees in canada. there is that outlet. look, the u.s. working east at this point, 31 governors who oppose syrian refugees on really serious grounds of security, you know the numbers on this that 700 and i think over 800,000 refugees have been resettled in the united states, not one has committed a crime. two were prosecuted for possibly planning a crime. this is not an issue, life has risk, yes it's true there may be a searing refugee who causes harm at some point but that is not a reason to ignore millions who need help right now. it has been rather shameless. >> please join me in thanking our guests. [applause].
[inaudible] [inaudible] >> now a german diplomat to the united states during a panelist to discuss the challenges that quickly take on a simulated millions of migrants from places like iraq, syria, libya and afghanistan. and how the process could be ease. this is about about one hour and 20 minutes. >> the contributions, the first speaker is lori grant was the profession of international relations at the university of southern california, and the author of most recently citizens
abroad states and the middle east and north africa and official stories, politics and national narratives in egypt and algiers, shall be followed by david fitzgerald and the chair at the university of california san diego, and most recently the author of calling the masses, the democratic origins of racist, and last, will be an intervention by stefan peterman was deputy counsel at the consulate general of the federal republic of germany. so each speaker will talk for 15 minutes, please try to confine your time to 15 minutes. i will note just before the end of the period and will have 45 minutes to for q&a.
>> good afternoon. i've been assigned the task of speaking about the domestic implication of the refugee crisis in turkey, jordan, jordan, lebanon and giving 15 minutes to do that. so i promise i would speak fast. let me begin with a few general remarks and the first is that none of this can be viewed, or should be viewed outside the context of what we started calling the arab spring but which developed into something far worse, arab uprisings in general so that what is happening syria we also have dramatic development in libya and yemen which are also producing refugees but not at the same magnitude. second interesting characteristic of this crisis and i think it referred to in an earlier session is that refugees are largely living in urban areas are in rural areas but in towns. in other words most
refugees, the vast majority are not living in what we think of as it refugee camps. even though we think about jordan for example we see these camps and we see southern turkey we see the camps but this is much more of an urban phenomenon. in other point is the searing refugee crisis is one of refugees from middle income country going largely to largely middle income countries. so going on to europe and so the capacity for those countries have to be gauged also based on the fact that these are middle income countries. it's different from the refugee that you see another countries. let me turn to my march and go through this alternate first to turkey. the numbers they were talking about in any of these turkeys, turkey, lebanon and jordan are very dependent on who's given the statistics and what month were talking about. there's movement back and forth is also movement outside. but the most recent statistics given to turkish officials are
2.7 million syrians. this populace in the refugee population is concentration is heavily in the south and southeast of the country where the government does operate refugee camps for about 250,000 refugees. their people get access to healthcare and educational services and so on. these camps have waiting list for people. that is because the syrians who are outside the do not have the same assistance and access to assistance to healthcare or educational opportunities. those people in most cases are struggling for the basic necessities like shelter food, and one can assume i think that in all of these cases, even when the searing conflict to and tomorrow that large numbers of these people are probably not going home or not going home anytime soon. let me say about the political context because all through these countries it's important to understand what is happening on the domestic front. prior to giving the searing uprising,
searing and turkish relations web been quite strained have begun to improve. this is part of the presence policy referred to by some of his own automated summon outreach to the arab world. yet when the demonstrations began and the president syria be used to yield the protesters relationships between the two countries deteriorated quickly. turkey actually became one of their most of ireland opponents. turkey them very quickly became involved in supporting the insurgency with the backing of the united states. then they conditions and continue to deteriorate and we had a full-blown civil war. turkey was deeply located in that. the regime has proven to be resilient under the protection that you may remember at the beginning of new york times, it was going to fall into months or four months, obviously none of that came to pass. turkey has continued to have a relatively open course across
border policy that includes a border with individuals in human beings but also to immunization to aid rebel groups and some reports even gas mass for turkey in use in syria. this came from the context of the arab uprising in arab spring were initially the turks and turkish government have decided with parties associated with the brotherhood that those parties ended up being defeated particularly in the case of egypt, parties that were supported in opposition been supported largely by the king of saudi arabia and the uae, turkey found itself isolated it has policy in the region. since it does with the king of saudi arabia there has been a gradual push to try between the two to counter what they what they see as granting iranian influence. but relations remain strained. this award syria has taken a tremendous toll and set a turkey itself.
primarily but not exclusively because it has served as one reason why there has been a revival of the kurdish issue and turkish domestic politics. this is taken increasingly bloodied dimensions and of course the turkish government rejects the presence of or any suggestion of the possibility to establish a kurdish policy in northern syria while at the same time most of those who are outside view the kurds who are fighting against isis is one of the best forces in the fight. so there's a contradiction of all there. in terms of domestic front to turkey what will happen next, as you may know there's recently a change in prime ministers. parliamentary elections will take place in the fall. the president is hoping that he will obtain additional ceased to be able to enable him to cease the constitution to put
it into a truly presidential one. thus contribute further to one. thus contributing further to the authoritarian turn in turkey. again this is inextricable to what is happening and serious. a brief on the economic situation. prior to the the outbreak of the uprising of civil war and syria, turkey's economic integration with iraq and syria was a major success that they could point to. the overall volume of trade was not that great but it was contributing to a diminishing marginalization if you will of the areas boring those countries. the conflict in syria has dramatically reversed that trend, security conditions in the southern frontier deteriorated and they close the border with syria to commercial traffic, meanwhile big dig has also blocked trade from turkey to protest some of the positions that they have taken. in addition, tourism which is a very important contributed to the gdp in turkey has taken a terrible hit. as a result of the refugee crisis and as a result of the increasing spill over into southern turkey of the violence from syria.
in terms of government spending on the refugees come in the first five years that, from 2011 - 2015 turkish government spent 9,000,000,000 dollars. the amount that it is spending per month is a gradually increasing to a point of 500,000,000 dollars per month. that spending hundred million dollars per month. that's been a continues were looking at a much higher cost for turkey going forward. in terms of the refugee presence, the presence of syrians in the south have strained the turkish schools, strained hospitals and other services, housing and food crisis have risen. when it comes to the refugees there is a difference among analysts for example if one looks and it does appear at least an initial. to have a positive impact on domestic consumption. certain degree to degree to which the refugees may have contributed to growth but most economists feel that is probably reached its limit. and the contribution is not likely to be a lasting one. at the same
time one would expect along with this and impact on inflation. while the figures different it appears that higher refugee populations inflation there is higher than the national average. this is understandably. as for the unemployment rate is there is always an issue with refugees creating jobs the statistics are not always clear. there are studies that suggest that at least 300,000 syrians thousand syrians have entered turkish labor markets. so there's some suggestion that this has added to that implement rate in turkey but a lot of these jobs are new jobs in the results of the increased presence of the refugees. there is also evidence to the place of turks, especially those on in the lower levels of
employment effort they have been displaced by some jobs others however have lost their jobs. it's a very mixed fixture in terms of the economy and in terms of unemployment. let me turn to lebanon. lebanon again on the front lines of the humanitarian crisis as mentioned in the initial presentation, the statistics differ but anywhere between one in four or one of five people currently living in lebanon is refugee. that includes -- refugees who have been in lebanon since 1948. anyway, lebanon has the highest per capita refugee concentration of the world. all's a little bit about palestinians in a minute, but it's important to keep in mind that they will be in part be shaped by early experiences and that is the case when it
comes to lebanon and jordan. below the property line and blow the experience as well as -- they had an open door policy and then in 2015 there instructed to stop registering in syria and then a sponsorship system was in place and new residents and then syrians with deportation without staying for the right paperwork. political context here is also very important. it was alluded to earlier think in one of the questions. lebanese government is you can say that it is in gridlock. lebanon has not held a presidential election since 2008. the president was elected then
term excited 2014. basically lebanon is being governed by the council of ministers of the cabinet where we have different ministries controlled by different secretary groups. that limits the possibilities for cooperation and coordination of policies and the lebanese government historically has been ill inclined to tend to the needs of its own citizen tree much to the needs of refugees. that certainly is not changed in this particular situation. this absence see state will not be compelled to ease the burden on refugees. so we and up with syrians in lebanon come again lebanese government to not allow for the establishment of any formal camps so people are crammed into rental houses and into and formal settlements. many of them in the belly and engage in various forms of agricultural labor. the security situation in
lebanon is quite tenuous. there is a serious challenge from isis in the northern part of the country. there are also concerns about the infiltration of radicals of various sorts into some of the palestinian refugee camps. in that context, promised by by saudi arabia to provide $4 billion to assist lebanon in further reinforcing its military, that deal was an old. several months ago it had to do with lebanon's reaction to the storming of the saudi embassy where the saudi sought the lebanese were not sufficiently supportive of them. this is all part of the larger regional complex of the world that has the domestic political party in lebanon and an ally in iran and therefore a nemesis of
saudi arabia, the saudis continue to be extremely unhappy that has blood place of lebanese government. this is all really about that. it's not really about what the lebanese had to say about the storming of the embassy. turning to the economic impact. because of the president has has been without a president adds to further deceptions of instability. its economy was was reputed to experience a zero gdp growth last year. they have been increasing protests on the part of citizens with the garbage protest was mentioned earlier, that is just one of numerous examples of dysfunction, corruption, and civil rights abuses in the country. as for the refugees themselves, they find themselves in extremely merciless position and did not have a right to be in lebanon, so they end up working and putting increasing pressure on wages somewhere between 60 and 70% of refugee children are working, employers are eager to hire syrians and palestinians because they're more vulnerable and they have to pay them less.
there refugees who are engaged in labor or for sexual exploitation. , time to have left? another five minutes. just very briefly, because of the palestinian refugee presence in lebanon is also important and they too have face cuts and assistance in poverty rates, recent cuts you may have note that unhcr is the agency that deals with refugees around the world. they do that, there's a separate agency that deals exclusively with palestinian refugees and that is you and rwa and that is -- so they have separate funding so the cuts taking place recently significantly affected humanitarian conditions for palestinians. palestinians have arrived in 1948, they have been restricted into the economy in which they have been illegally work so there generally, they generally
find themselves unless they're paid which is further increases in poverty levels. now the palestinians in some ways are affected by what is happened because of the way the relations and a number palestinians factions had with the government in damascus. because of what has happened in the damascus the palestinian groups have found themselves increasingly under siege in lebanon so in effect their protector so the government as a protector of any sort has been undermined. so we can look to syria as a major ally. let me turn finally to jordan. one minute. okay. i don't think i can quite talk that fast. but i will try. the statistics again with jordan are very depending on whether talking about official
statistics from un agencies or the government. the government has a tendency tendency to for its own purposes to exaggerate the numbers that are reportedly there. government says there's 2020% of the population, in any case, there are clearly significant impact particularly on the northern governor in jordan and on the presence of the refugees, the majority that are not living in camps but living in urban areas and on the syrian border. one again is to see the refugee crisis in jordan against the previous background in 19481991 people living in the golf in 2003, the u.s. invasion of iraq and so on. but these other crises in some ways are very different from the current crisis. the number of syria and jordan's have greatly exceeded the number of iraq is who during the previous waves.
the kingdom has tried to control the inflow of refugees into the kingdom particularly in the last couple of years so now instead of a thousand refugees per day they let them 5200, some days not at all. they prioritize security. jordan, if one knows again what contributes -- the third-largest number of recruits that have joined isis have come from jordan. so there is a concern about the degree to which jordanians are being radicalized and went back to me for domestic stability in the country. . .
>> >> where people showing up on dangerous overcrowded votes and graphs? and the young boys who washed up on the beach why did they risk their children's lives making those decisions? it is a serious question we started to discuss today we learned from the first panel only about 1% of those two are designated refugees will be eligible for resettlement in a place like canada or the united states. for the vast majority the world's refugees there only hope to get asylum is hoping to get to a particular territory where they can ask
for protection there 140 countries around the world those that sign the refugee convention for a protocol estimate reaches that definition to be persecuted on specific grounds but at the same time those very same countries are doing as much as they can to make it extremely difficult for people in that situation to reach a territory to ask for asylum there using all sorts of techniques some of those including visa policy sometimes they deliberately target nationalities sometimes governments pay off to do the dirty work of
asylum control to translate the viet into europe and today in morocco the only way for someone to ask for asylum on the north african coast with systematically the moroccan authorities as they get to those dates regardless of the situation. together these policies constitute a classic catch-22 and that goes like this. will he said the refugee definition they say we will let you stay if you come here but we will not let you come here.
some of these policies are specifically targeting the asylum haters and those are from migrants whether economics or international terrorism but regardless if they are targeting asylum seekers they have disproportionate effects for those who have legitimate asylum claims. over the right to extend our discussion of the european context talk about what is happening in the backyard united states and mexico and central america and cuba and the goal is to shed light on some hid in techniques of the rock-and-roll and the way the buffering of particular nationalities varies so tutored your focus
to what some called the forgotten border and over the last 20 years u.s. authorities are calling the defacto southern border with does a look like the buffer state if you go to that you will see people openly crossing that are headed to the u.s. a 70 percent across the border are headed to the u.s. and the mexican government makes no serious attempt to stop the that the border. and with many people those
asking for asylum one of west riding the rails so doesn't have that that we see if you go to see a diego but it has a vertical border where there is systematic control of the transportation routes leading north to the u.s.. in the u.s. has been doing many things from central america but going back to the '80s that make it difficult to cross the border including these up policy to make it difficult policies of the encampment and other policies to prevent central americans for reaching the u.s. border to keep them crawled in the
south if you will. beginning in the 1990's the u.s. has been financing large scale deportation in currently under those initiatives under 2007 is a great deal of capabilities building of the southern border buildup. lot of that has to its database construction, monitoring of biometrics to link the database and those air passengers having information shared with authorities it is a very tight level of cooperation between the mexican and canadian u.s. authorities. in keeping people from ever reaching mexico is to conduct advertising campaigns to broadcast the
dangers because thousands of migrants have been killed including the vitoria's cases of mass kidnappings and murder. i don't have time to get into it the written as if they were produced by a national government warning people of these very serious dangers. of the scale of the deportations but is going on for very long time. the ramp up of deportation they deported more than 3 million of central americans you can understating of scale to compare the numbers of the main three nationalities of
guatemalans over honduras by comparing those deportations from mexico you can see in read beginning the 1990's was expelled from north of the guatemalan border u.s. is catching up through 2015 in mexico is doing a vast majority of the work the mexican government estimates it was intercepting in deporting more than half of the central americans for those detained by the u.s.
when it comes to central america almost all of those are detained in are deported which is very different the way those nationalities are detained in mexico. very few are asking with a human rights protection but in practice it is extremely difficult to know they're eligible for asylum with is deliberately broken. the distance between cuba and florida is the same is between cuba and the yucatan peninsula of mexico. the large numbers of cubans
using mexico as a bridge to the u.s. though the policy is somebody is caught from cuba there really returned if they committed to u.s. lamp whether the beach or the mexico border they are quickly rolled into the country with the key bin readjustment act in almost all of them are admitted and in 2015 but it is barely discussed in the public's fear it is not the object of political heat and smoke to
detain those people who are asking for asylum in the u.s.. why is that? there is a very serious pressure to contain the population in the preferences according to the dry fly a policy the second is the strength of the anti-castro lobby in does not create the optics of disorderly migration around the issue. even when mexico has detained larger rivers of cubans they are quickly have let the amount that gives the person 30 days to leave. and then they will have taken the bus.
in conclusion regency the buffering of central americans but as a much more sophisticated buffering policy has been implemented from africa and asia to the middle east with large asylum seeking components. but to reach this country to offer protection because there is no other choice to do that illegally. [applause]
>> good afternoon from the german consulate. has a mediocre diplomat we were invited along these brilliant scientist and i.m. none of that. what i have to find a new situation and every morning. because it was just today i would not know who windy elections in austria. these are my personal opinions but there are some spirted overlapping sectors. i have two points of light to talk about. since the seminar is under the title of migration, i
thing. i go to germany that i don't like i work here with a lot of money bet is of most of them would have said. the were the money is good you marry you have kids and go to school than all of a sudden you reach a point. to said feel much more at home. we have had immigration that we did not admit it. ended our public life to be honest but that has changed recently.
here and that is the greatest challenge germany has faced if you talk to the germans there is fierce discussion every where. people are very. about that ended is a topic that some of the best in the worst of my country you have seen aggression and attacks and arson against refugees coming only in this year in
the figures went up in the first three months of 2016 and will do everything to fight against that. but the other consequences is the emergence of a strong populist party that did not come as a surprise because of university but was with the party is expected that earlier to happen to look at the politics for america being the head of the consulate's democratic union moved her activity more and
more to the left. abandoning the military service of homosexual marriage, with the excess out of nuclear power with the aims of the left-wing in the green party. in to lose its influence terribly it is 19 percent of public support so by moving to the left she opened day voyage -- a boy in we haven't had a taboo whenever one emerges somewhere very
early if their addiction was of a bit too radical they might even appear in parliament's and then the next election to disappear even though all the neighboring countries have the strong rate wing populist parties so the deutschland that the merged in the state elections very strongly and i am not so sure there would be gone so fast enough for the first time out of her own conservative party that her party should move to the right and they're not sure the format for that's but
the topic covered like to comment is the european union. with the influx of the refugees coming into germany with those presentations before. and it was very clear that this must be a problem of the european union and i was shocked to see that the european union that i consider to be a union of values, obviously at that point when dealing with refugees did not show any common values. you can see if you go through the different
governments of the european union today to find common sense at least for go to the history of the european union whenever there was a challenge they hammered out a compromise sometimes a native rebellion happy but still it was a compromise. the european union has also developed him during a out a compromise but we were still far away in for me that is the biggest challenge if you permit me bigger than the refugee crisis itself with the war tore incontinent with the european union is a period of peace.
and though those core elements to the day common immigration policy it is impossible every country has its own ideas and whoever arrives will just have the window shopping and point number two even though it isn't popular cover we would have to construct a robust package so we have to protect against anything else we would have a coordinated integration even as governments and political forces but the society
itself to bring a great effort people with other religions of the different mind-set that is a big task and it is a balanced distribution of refugees if you say 1.1 million that is a big number of people if you see the european union has almost 500 million then it shouldn't be a problem so we will have to have a balanced distribution those are my thoughts i wanted to share with you if you have questions and i'll be happy to answer. [applause]
i live in europe and half of the time in they say listen this isn't our problem we didn't benefit by it weigela does to pay for it? with saudi arabia or iran or iraq, the united states, turkey, created this incredible disaster, then let them step forward and pay for it. >> now we will hear from the panel. [laughter] [laughter]
cement bettis to the points we made this morning i would go back to the planes that were made with the first presentation in which are related to the question of a common humanity the in and the degree to which there is a sense that we have responsibilities toward each other whether something has been created by our own governments or not, i don't think personally i would not want to compare the united states reaction to put myself from the perspective, with their reaction to saudi arabia were then the other countries that play a major role to foster the disaster
and refuse to take any serious responsibility for the humanitarian crisis. i think, to take off my international relations at but the hat to somebody who cares of belonging to which human race and responsibility to other human beings and hopefully that would be a motivating force but at all feel like that question is directed to me. [laughter] >> but it is very clear their international indications that they are a member of the united nations
of international law of how to behave when refugees not gone your door as a subscribes to that treatment of refugees you cannot say at the moment somebody knocks i did not do what i am sorry to tell you but of those international obligations. >> one question per questioner may be would get another chance. >> here's a question for the professor, if the refugees are located in other countries what effect will this have eventually on syrian society? with a selected group of people if they're able to
leave the country how does this change the future prospects of syria? >> it is an extremely important question for it is difficult at this point to say because the outflow has not stopped so we don't know at what point is the baseline once syria looks towards rebuilding we don't know how many were people will leader homage more construction will take place or how many will be killed but longer they are a broad the less likely they are to return. i am sure there are many studies that could be conducted now to help us understand better exactly not just regionally how those flows occurred but to get a better handle on the
socio-economic class of those who have left a half has changed and interacts with people's employment to what extent are we really talking? in with the crisis is it agricultural and are they people that tend to leave the country and entirely how many will still be there at the end but not where they started in the possibilities for going back to their original homes? is a moving target and it is very difficult to imagine what things will look like if in two years it is one set of parameters if it is five for 10 years it is very different. one of the things mentioned this morning that is extremely important is the degree that syrian children are not being educated the
future residual and many of them are not able because of economic circumstances to continue their education so you are looking at an entire generation of children who are illiterate or they have the good fortune to integrate into surrounding society tv accepted into europe what does that mean being except -- except tobacco and afterwards? so some of those things what are the major populations we also have dramatic ones with iraq because that has not yet healed the outpouring from libya or yemen with the
destruction and devastation the humanitarian disaster so what does this mean? to call them a failed what does it mean for the possibility of rebuilding? i don't know. >> in the program, you are proposed for management at the migrant crisis in europe. your point number two was robusa border controls and how to stop work in with the agreement wherk european travel freely, how practical would it be? >> the agreement was about traveling freely and between those members they. but it never related to the outer borders of the area.
that has nothing to do with each other. >> is a professional engaged in financial forensics, i am interested in the economics of the corruption involved with the spirit in "the new york times" a couple weeks ago, there is a description of the $6 billionwaa achieved by the transportation, if you will, of the refugees. there has been no comment by any of the presenters about the endemic corruption that exists in all of these countries and that he very interested in knowing your viewpoint as to what and how that may have affected this whole situation. >> to speak to corruption in mexico were again there's always
a gap between what the law says and how it works in practice. but in mexico not come in the cap is absolutely enormous. every survey, every pitted in a little evidence, no matter what your research met it is has shown very widespread corruption that the police more than any other group or as much as any other group present a real threat of danger to maghreb and that includes many asylums acres who are passing through mexico.g just one data point a few yearse ago, the central authorities conducted polygraph test on the migration border regions along the southern order and more than half of them are unable to pass those polygraphs because the level of extortion and various other kinds of shakedowns are so extreme. it's a very serious problem.es d
>> just a couple of things. i remember when the outflow from turkey really became dramatic and i was wondering. i understood no state is capabla of completely controlling its borders or at shoreline, but it into me if they have capacity that the turkish state has been able to do a better job of stopping the output and if the people in power had control and were interested in doing not. i raise this actually in a section a couple weeks ago when we had people on campus do volunteer work and i expressed my surprise that i hadn't been any rep ordained about how beyond knowing what it costs for people who wanted to leave turkey to get degrees and
understanding that the ships are often rickety and many people die along the way and so on. but these young men reported to us was the various mafias involved and each of them rationalizing and different aspects of the process from selling life jackets, which apparently in many cases are left with card board, which leads them to think as opposed to in his eerie flotation device in them, to shore patrol shipsny that was some of it being a ship and caused them to sing and let others go by presumably because they paid for their passage and others have not done so. b the degree to which there is collusion, not just among various traffickers and so on, but also amongst the authorities amazed movements is important to
highlight. the other thing with regard to corruption is when we look at refugees, but if you look at the record of the united states senate in the can, for example, the humanitarian assistance and support in iraq and stuff no one can account for any more.ol it is not just a country like area. not just a country like lebanon or turkey or jordan as a problem with corruption. [inaudible] -- in germany. there's a big rise of right-wing parties and right wing supporters alter out the world
including even here in the u.s. this is very interesting because it disappeared, especially in europe where the nationstates disappear with me and you. politics is very important and accepting refugees. what do you think about how will it happen an impact arise if right and how it's being seen and to if tom and that issue is
theirs. >> well, this morning without the first right-wing president in the state by 49.7 and the green candidate one. this is a very concrete phenomenon. how strong it has become recently and what will happen in the next elections.th you can not acknowledge that on the last dish part of public opinion in my country, i always find that people have obviously a problem except democracy breaks things like that. in democracy you have to respect it the boat vote for those parties. i can speak only for my country. we have of course clear rules. they have or can't do tuition and red lines that you cannot hl
cross. but within those headlines of the con to tuition, people have of course the right to vote the party they think represents their political beliefs. if you call yourself a democracy, you have to deal with that. it is a competition. the other parties, theat established parties have took group they are up to the challenges that they can offer something to the elect are at and some ground for themselves. we have reached the point that we've understood they had to be in contact with their electorate and share little more of there can learn and maybe could do more of the ground. i'm not sure how much it means. the difference in the way the u.s. has conduct its policy under democratic and republican at illustration.
you know, in some cases is been done in one part of the region and another depending which administration we talk about that the record of the last several decades is not one that is -- is one that seems to illustrate the values that the united states proclaims to be bringing to the world. living under -- the banana place like iraq under the most brutal sanctions regime and has jury for over a decade, repeated invasions. drove warfare now. so if this is what one gets with a democratic administration, i am not sure that the rise of a donald trump phenomenon really for people in the middle east to flip that these realities for
decades is something. i'm not sure that makes a whole lot of difference. i'm the one hand they might be shocked by the brutality of the rhetoric, but they've had to live with brutality of the policies are i'm not sure that it makes much difference. >> thank you. my question is for mr. biedermann.fe i was struck by your comment on how the full effects of the refugee crises in europe mightre even be worse than the current existing crisis because of theth stresses and divisions it's creating. if you could not mind speculating on the worst case, how troubling, how bad could that get in terms of the division of the union. politically and so on. thank you.
[inaudible] no. i am an optimist. the project of the european union is so big after having a europe in 1985 complete a destroyed to create a political body that might have been the more. i'm the first generation in europe forever that is never seen a war and says thank you to the european union. that was so big and so pardon because if it goes well, it might offer a kind of organization to other parts of the world, to where people still think that wars are fighting might go on forever. we managed now for 70 years to hammer out compromises of our problems without it should. the utopia we are trained to realize they are. i can't imagine that we give it
a just for one particular topic that should be solvable as i said. europe is strong. economy is running. it's a rich part of the world. let's not be so shy about that. we could absorb refugees then we should do so. i pray every morning at the project arrives because it soesi important. it's not typical for a diplomat to pray every morning. last night >> i want to get the thought that professor asked. i think it amounts to the same thing. each of you have offered a diagnosis of parkman maybe all of the situation in each of you have implied certain dilutions. mr. biedermann, you are the one with the four planes and perhaps propose most completely.
one could look at your diagnosis and solution does one double work to a relatively narrow it and chin for no expansion of the 1951 refugee convention definition of refugee. or one could book a year solutions as really underscoring that regime really needs to be dissolved or completely rethought and asked the question who is the refugee in the first place. are your solution should challenge to the refugee may print this and chin were today require that we maintain that action? >> i think the distinction still a sacred thing, even though it process enormous problems.
there is a difference between somebody who reads a country where his or her life is there i threatened compared to somebody looking for economic better life. it's not the same thing and we should keep the bread line here i think. in reality, it is so difficult. it is really difficult. but consider if we opened thosea doors and consider everybody who considers himself a refugee as such. the numbers would go up and i'm not sure than in our countries. >> it's important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. the biggest problem with the u.n. refugee are not provisions of the convention, the things that might be added onto it. if the convention were to be opened up from scratch, that the result would be much worse for people in desperate conditions
than what we have right now. personally, i would like to see many more legal mechanisms for people to apply for protection regardless of where they are. speaking as a citizen of the world rather than an analyst, i would be led to trademark. if enforced measures to things like that in return for his serious wide legal mechanism. >> that is. if someone from syria or turkey that is not under the control of the persecuting group, that that person be able to apply for asylum in the u.s. or canada or qatar or wherever and travel directly to that place of refuge. >> for example, if the doors are left completely up and comment
that means when asylum seekers come to a place like europe or have their refugees status determination are found not to be -- to fit the refugee criteria, what happens? typically people are not deported. in general i'm not in favor of nasty partitions. but rather a system and make that possible for people to come to europe for another place of refuge of a serious refugees that his determination than the current system that has this very high cost of human lives because of the possible transit. [inaudible] >> accepting refugees, just under the economic issues and cultural issues. how many refugees per year the
u.s. could accept from the middle east? what is the cause that you estimate how it could be financed. >> question. for most of the 2000 u.s. has been accepting a million legal permanent resident per year. right now we are just taking exc something like 30 to 50,000 refugees. a a very small number. clearly the united states has a massive capacity to take more refugees. if you fly from los angeles to new york, it did country and there's a lot around for refugees yet we need to be honest about the fact that front there are costs. resettlement does incur costs in the first few months in few
years. if those investments are made early on comment it will reap returns in the future. we need to be serious about the fact they guess we need our congressional appropriations for resettlement. >> the ballpark estimates of th. cost. >> i don't have specific estimates to give you. this is something that would require traditional action because it's not something the president can do to appropriate bar manager is refugee resettlement. clearly there is no political will to do that now. >> the refugee crisis in 2011 immediately after the arab
spring is not quite the crisis anymore since it has become quite a can't have phenomenon. many practitioners in thet is a receiving countries say that the real price this is the fact that they cannot afford to provide enough, you know, enough care, especially mental care because these refugees are suffering from sexualization of torture and they see this as a real crisis. they are called s. no climax or have their location or names classified. some of the victims testify to clear human rights abuse. my question is has there been a movement towards documenting the stories that he is fit to who
testified to the caregivers, to build an oral archive of the human rights abuses, mike and bob mia because whatever happens in thought me a happens now in terms of torture with middle eastern refugees. has there been at least in germany a movement towards collecting this witness testimony so as to persecute human rights abuse? [inaudible] >> a lot of the documenting refugees tories. whether there are particular groups interested are focusing on human rights abuses, that i simply don't know.
[inaudible conversations] >> if they invest both in additional $100 million into higher education of the commonwealth, but got to change the way we deliver education and expect more for the dollars we are getting. >> there's a body of literature that's pretty clear clear they're certain courses you should take there should be in place if you expect to be successful in college. to simply accept students who have been fulfilled the curriculum obligation to let them into a school is doing a great disservice to them and the effort which is something i actually support. >> fbi director james comey testifies this morning on this recommendation not to prosecute
hillary clinton for use of a private e-mail server alive at 10:00 a.m. eastern on seas and three. -- c-span 3. >> president obama as the u.s. will decrease the number of troops in afghanistan's 28400 troops over the next six months come a higher number than originally planned. here is a look. >> good morning, everybody. more than 14 years ago after al qaeda attacked our nation on 9/11, the united states went to war in afghanistan against these terrorists and the taliban that harbored them.
over the years and links to heroic efforts by our military, our intelligence community, diplomat and development professionals, and we pushed al qaeda out of its camps, helped the afghan people tackled the taliban had and establish a democratic government. we dealt crippling to the al qaeda leadership. we deliver justice to osama bin laden and we train afghan forces to take responsibility for their own security. given that progress, a year and a half ago in december 2014, america's combat mission in afghanistan came to a responsible end compared to the 100,000 troops were once had, today fewer than 10,000 remain in compared to their previous mission, helping to feed the site, our forces are now focused on too narrow mission, training
and enticing afghan forces and supporting counterterrorist operations against the remnants of al qaeda as well as other terrorist groups including isil. in short, even as we've maintained a relapse last case against those who are threatening us, we are no longer engaged in a major ground war in afghanistan. but even this narrow mission continued to be dangerous. over the past year and a half, or indeed americans, military and civilian have lost their lives in afghanistan on behalf of our security and we honor their sacrifice. we stand with the families in their grief and we resolved 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 four different allies and partners can a coalition that contribute 6000 troops of their own. we have a partner in the afghan government, and the afghan people who support a long strategic partnership with the united states and of that, afghans continue to step up. for the second year come afghan forces are focused on simple for their own security. every day, nearly 320,000 afghan soldiers and police are serving and fighting mma are giving their lives to defend their country. to their credit and in the face of a continued insurgency and terrorist networks, afghan forces remain in control of all the major population centers, venture capitalist, major transit route and most district centers. afghan forces have pushed the
taliban out of some areas. meanwhile in another milestone we recently removed the leader of the taliban, mohammed mansoor. nevertheless, the security situation in an remains precarious. even as they improve afghan security forces or is though not as strong as they need to be. with our help, we are still working to improve critical capabilities such as intelligence, logistics, aviation and command and control. at the same time, the taliban remains a threat. they've gained ground in some cases come to continue attacks and suicide bombings including in kabul because the taliban deliberately target innocent civilians. more afghan men, women and children are dying and often overlooked, millions of afghans
have fled their homes and many have their country. as president and commander-in-chief, i made it clear i will not allow afghanistan to be his first defeat in for a terrorist attack our nation. that's why constantly review our strategy with national security team including commanders and afghan and good and obvious route is guided by facts, what is happening on the ground to determine what is working and what needs to be changed. that is why at times i've made adjustments. for example, slowing the drawdown of forces in the recently giving u.s. forces or flexibility to support afghan forces on the ground and in the air. i strongly believe it is in our national security interest, especially after all the treasure we've invested in afghanistan over the years that we give our afghan partners the very best opportunity to
succeed. upon taking command of coalition forces this spring, general nichols then conducted a review of the security situation in an inner military posture. it was good to get a fresh set of eyes and based on the recommendation of general nichols then as well as secretary carter and chairman dunford and following extensive consultations with the national security team is both congress and the afghan government and our international partners, announcing additional adjustment to our posture. instead of going down to 5500 troops by the end of this year, the united states will maintain a really 8400 troops in afghanistan into next year to the end of my administration. the narrow meshes signed will not change their main focus on support focus on supporting afghan forces in going after terrorists. maintaining forces that the specific level based on our
assessment of the conditions and strength of afghan forces will allow us to continue to provide support to help afghan forces continued to improve. from coalition in jalalabad and kandahar will continue supporting nafta and oysters on the ground and in the air and continue supporting critical counterterrorism operations. reaffirming the enduring commitment of the 90s case of afghanistan and its people. the decision i make today can help our allies align their own commitments. as a note tomorrow i depart for the nato summit at warsaw where i will meet with coalition partners and afghan president hamid and chief executive of dole appeared partners have stepped forward with troops and funding so we can keep lengthening afghan forces through the end of this decade. the nato summit will be an opportunity for more allies and partners to affirm their
contribution and i'm confident they will because all of us have a vital interest in the securities ability of afghanistan. my decision today sends a message to the taliban and all those who have a post asking if his progress. you've now been waging war against the afghan people for many years. you've been unable to prevail. afghan security forces continue to grow stronger and the commitment of the international community, including united states to afghan and in its people will endure. i will say it again. the only way to end this conflict and achieve a full drawdown of foreign forces in afghanistan is there a lasting political settlement between the afghan government and the taliban. that is the only way. that is why the united states will strongly support an afghan led reconciliation process and why we call them all countries
in the region two and safe haven for militants and terrorists. finally, today's decision best position for a successor to future decisions about our president and afghan is dan. in january, the next u.s. resident will send the most owners and stability of the commander-in-chief. the security of the united states and the safety of the american people. the decision i make today ensures my successor has this knowledge foundation for can any progress in an as well as flexibility to address the threat of terrorist and as it evolves. in closing i want to address directly what i know is on the mind of many american, especially troops and families who've borne a heavy burden for our security. wafers that are forces for two years ago, few americans imagine imagined we would be there in any capacity this on.
as president i focus our strategy and training and building up asking where says. it has been continually and i believe it is up to afghan to defend their country. because we have emphasized training their capabilities, we have been able to add our major ground war 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 and we can't forget what is at stake in afghanistan. this is where al qaeda is trying to recruit. this is where transit continues to expand its present. if these terrorists succeed in breaking areas and camps where they train and plot, they will attempt 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 and once more we will pause to remember the lives we lost. americans and peoples from around the world will stand with their families, survivors who still bear the scars of that day, think the first responders who rushed to save others and perhaps most important to salute our men and women in uniform, are 9/11 generation who have served in afghanistan and jan for our security. a lot of the memory of all of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, including 2200 american patriots who have given their lives in afghanistan. as we do, let's 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 take time for them to build up military capacity that we sometimes take for granted. given its enormous challenges they face, the afghan people need the partnership of the world led by the united states for many years to come. but with air support, afghanistan is a better place than it once was. millions of afghan children, boys and girls are in school. germanic improvements to public health have saved the lives of mothers and children. afghans have cast their ballot and democratic elections, seeing the first democratic transfer of power in their country's history. the current national unity government continues to pursue refunds including record revenues last year to strength in their country. and over time helped decrease the need or international
support. that government is a strong partner with us in combating terrorism. that's the progress we've helped make possible. that is the progress that our troops have helped make possible in their diplomats and development personnel. that is the progress we can help sustain a partnership with the afghan people and our coalition partners. 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 on his serve to protect us. may god bless the united states of america.
>> good afternoon. in light of the report, this statement that i make will be fairly long. but after statement is presented, i would be happy to stay and take questions for as long as you want to ask them. the decision to go to a war in iraq and to remove saddam hussein in power in the coalition were over 40 countries
led by the united taste of america was the hardest, most momentous, most agonizing decision i took in my 10 years as british prime minister. for that decision today, i accept full responsibility. but that exception and without excuse, i recognized the division felt 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 who lost ones they loved in iraq all the members of our armed forces committee versus another nation
or iraqis. the intelligence assessment turned out to be wrong. the aftermath turned out to be more hostile, protect it and bloody than ever we imagine. the coalition planned for one grand attack encountered another in the nation whose people we wanted to set free and secure from the evil of saddam became instead victim to sit. for all of this, i expressed morris laro, regret and apology than you may ever know or can
believe. only two things i cannot say. it claimed by some that by removing saddam would call the terrorism today in the middle east and what a better to let them in power. i profoundly disagree. saddam was himself a wellspring of terror, a continuing threat to peace than its own people. if he had been left in power in 2003, then i believe he would want to attend threatened world peace than when the arab revelations of tony levin began, he would've clung to power with the same deadly consequences that we see in the carnage is area today where is at least an iraq, for all its challenges, we have today a government that is
recognized as internationally legitimate terrorism was the international community. the world was sadness in my judgment a better place without saddam hussein. secondly, i will never agree that those who died or were injured and make a sacrifice in vain. they fought in the defining global security struggle of the 21st century against terrorism and violence which wrote over it destroys lives and their sacrifice should always be remembered with thanksgiving and with honor in the is eventually one as it will be. i know some of the families can not and do not accept this is
so. i know there are those who could never forget or forgive me for having taken this decision and who think that i take it dishonestly. as the report makes clear, there is no parliament and cabinet not misled. there is no secret commitment towards intelligence was not ossified and the decision was made in good faith. however, i accept that the report makes serious criticisms of the way decisions were taken. again, i accept full responsibility for the criticism even were i do not fully agree with them. i do not think it is fair or accurate to criticize armed
forces, intelligence services or civil services. this high decision their act upon. the armed forces in particular did an extraordinary job throughout our engagement in iraq and incredibly difficult mission we gave them. i pay tribute to god. any thoughts derived from the decisions attached to them. they are people at enormous dedication and the country should be very proud of them. today is the right moment to go back, however, and look at the history of that time so even if they passionately disagree will at least understand why i did what i did and were blessed so that we do better in the future. first, by partnership changed
completely in 2001. 9/11 was the worst terrorist atrocity in history. over 3000 people died that day in america, including many british people making it the worst ever loss of life of our country's citizens from a single terror attack. in fact, 9/11 was prior to then, 23 countries that suffered terrorist attacks of that nature. 2002, 20 different nations lost. for over 20 years as well, the regime of saddam had become a source of conflict and bloodshed in the middle east. he attempted a nuclear weapons program only halted by a preventive strike in 1981 to use chemical weapons in the war began with a red, a war which
lasted seven years with around a million casualties out of the iranian ex. can a nuclear weapons program. he invaded kuwait in 1990 and his weapons extensively. for example, where thousands died in a single day. the international community made frequent attempts with the revolution calling for her head. he was in breach of no fewer than seven teen revolutions. in 1998, following the ejection of u.s. weapons inspectors from iraq, president clinton and i brought military strikes on facilities and from that point, regime change in iraq but the official policy of the u.s. administration. in a country where a majority of the iraqis are shia muslims and 20% of the population skirts, he ruled with an unparalleled
totality that the government almost exclusively from a 20% minority though many have basic things. saddam was not the only developer of weapons of mass distraction and libya have a program north korea was trying to obtain technology. the pakistani scientist a.q. khan was a collaborator such technology. but only one machine had used such weapons. that is saddam. intelligence indicated al qaeda and 9/11 showed that they were prepared for mass casualties. it is important not that we are here 15 years after 9/11 to record the atmosphere at that time. america had never suffered such an attack. its population were devastated. they regarded themselves at war.
the taliban enjoyed giving sanctuary to al qaeda have been removed from power in the end in november 2001. the 2002 bombings in the server 2000 tons lost their lives showed that can tend to rot. all western nations were changing their security posture. we were in a new world. at that time we did not know where the next attacks would come from. if you're at the u.s. administration that i shared was a possibility of terrorist groups by accident or by design, chemical weapons, biological weapons or even a primitive nuclear device. the report accepts after 9/11 the culture is at risk changed fundamentally. we believe we had to change policy from nations developing such weapons in order to eliminate the possibility of wmd and terrorists coming together.
saddam's regime was the place to start not because he represented the only threat, but because his was the only machine to abuse such weapons that were outstanding u.n. resolutions with her spec to them and the bloodshed suggested he was capable of aggressive unpredictable catastrophic actions. they were there for containment. the iraq survey report conduct did into the wmd program and new findings are expected in this report found that saddam didn't team -- did go back to the removal of sanctions. i asked people to put themselves in the shoes as prime ministers. more than a year or 9/11, in
late 2002 and early 2003, using the intelligent mount up on wmd. you are doing so in a changed context of mass casualties caused by a new virulent form of terrorism. you have to at least consider the possibility of a 9/11 here in britain and you protect your country. these are my considerations. there was no rush to war. the inquiry dismisses that i pledged britain to military action in 2002. i did not and could not say explicitly in the report conclude. i was absolutely dealing with
those issues. i made that clear in a note to president bush in july 2002. but he also said we had to proceed in the right way and the conditions are necessary to go to the u.n. route and avoid action as indeed the inquiry eye. so i forget the inquiry finds, i take the issue back to the u.n. this resulted in the november 2002 resolution urging or divine, giving saddam a final opportunity to comment to: immediate compliance with u.n. resolution and cooperate fully with the u.n. state. any noncompliant was to find us a material breach.
his cooperation with tv reported the suspect yours to the u.n. in january 2003 in the seventh of march 2003 again referred to in the body of the report. however, by then it was substantial disagreement in the u.n. security council. america wanted action. president putin and the leadership of france did not. in a final attempt to bridge the division, and create based on saddam's noncompliance with which he had to comply immediately, which included games with those responsible for his program and up to then had been refused except in country where they will be subject to intimidation. these are drawn up in a resolution accompanied by an alternate on -- ultimatum would result in military action. the new resolution and tests,
which if he had passed would avoid the military action. the united states understandably to state that in the event the u.n. had to be clear that action with colorado. this was the approach project did. the americans in the u.k. and other partners of over 40 nations have assembled the military action. president bush made it clear he was going to go back. the british government and my leadership and the leaders of the opposition be given access to the intelligence advice. the inquiry five in the 18th of march, war was not the last resort. given the impact of the u.n. and
the assistance of the united states for reasons i that completely understood and the cousins on train hundreds of thousands of troops could not be cap. definitely. it was the last moment decision rss the report indeed sides by then the u.s. is going to war with her without us. the inquiry finds that during the war without a majority of the tolling agreement, undermine the authority of the u.s. the reality is that the, brick, have continually try to act with already at the u.n. i convinced the americans to go back in november 2002 as i sat in after the initial conflict, britain put you in authority back in place in the aftermath so that from june 2003 british troops with full u.n. authority.
however, in the 18th of march there was gridlock. and resolution are 1041 and sven agreed to give one final opportunity. it was expected he had not done so. in that case, according to 1441, actions should have followed and didn't because i've been politically there was an impasse. i say the undermining of the u.n. was refusal to follow through and 1441 and with the the subsequent statement from president putin and president putin and the president and friends that they would veto any resolution authorizing action of noncompliance clearly possible to get a majority to agree in the resolution. the president chose explained there is no point in it would be vetoed. on the 18th of march, and this
is a vital thing to understand. given especially what sir john said this morning. we have come to the point of binary decision, right to remove saddam or not with america or not. this is a stark choice and it was good military action was not a last resort though it also says it may be necessary later. with respect, i didn't have the option of that delay. i had to decide. i thought of saddam, his record, his regime, and its importance to us in the post-9/11 world and i waited carefully. i took this decision with the heaviest of heart.
i have already asked the inquiry finds can hope that our forces and received a commitment that we should be part of that. if you read my private notes to president bush in 2002, you'll see my caution, my recognition this is not like kosovo or afghanistan at all peacefully. asset the 17th of march 2003, there was no middle way. no further time for deliberation. no room for my negotiation. a decision had to be taken. it was my mistake as prime minister. i took it, i stand by it. i only ask with humility that the british people accept that i took this decision because i
believed it was the right thing to do based on the information that i had and the threats i proceed and they did it as prime minister at that moment in time in 2003 was to do what i thought was right. however imperfect the situation or the process, moments of crisis such as this is a profound obligation that the person making the government of our country to take responsibility and to decide not to hide behind politics, expediency or emotion, but to recognize that it is a privilege above all others to lead this nation, that the accompaniment of that revelation in the interest of our nation are so supremely and plainly at stake
is to leave and not to shy away, to decide to not avoid this decision the judge there was its ability. neither history nor the fearsome rockers conduct of modern politics with all its love of the rear seat series and its willingness and addiction to believing the worst of everyone should false demand mode is ms. i knew it was not a popular decision. i know it shrinks into complete insignificant inside the human cost. i did it because i thought it was right then because i thought the human cost of inaction, a leading saddam and power would be greater for rest and for the world in the longer term. so the action command in the