tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN July 13, 2015 9:00am-11:01am EDT
i don't despite the sectarian history and the desire for blood feud and revenge, i don't think that's a hard argument to make on one foundation -- if you really take emotion out of the equation, there is not one actor in iraq who by themselves can defeat isis. it's just a fact. i don't care who you are. i don't care whether you're a good suni, whether you're a shia by kurd by yourself you will not defeat isis. it has to happen with our troops
imbedded as advisers because that's the only reason -- the iraqi army was 900,000 men in uniform on paper. 900,000. a couple of thousands guys took mosul, it's absurd why, because we had no imbeds. the tribes could run home to mama because we weren't there to shame them. the culture of region revolves around shame and honor. you'll run home to your tribe. so, we have to be a part of the solution, we have to sell the concept of a functioning iraq and we have to really jet sonned once and for all, it's an arab saying, but the idea of enemy is the enemy is my friend is
complete, complete hogwash when it comes to iran. the idea, that, you know, iran because they're killing sunni extremists are our friends? you have to be smoking something and it's not tobacco to believe that. >> okay, we have a question over here. >> yes, i'm nate madden with the 221st wonderfulson initiative. i wondering if the panel can speak more to this ideology dr. gorka you spoke about how the narrative of information warfare that the west is putting out is completely insufficient to combat what isis is doing on social media can the narrative be better influenced to counteract that, simply educating people in a very secular context that koz molg
they're still important very important in this situation? >> buy the book. how many theologians does the pentagon have? that understand the enemy threat doctrine like dproups of isis about the same number. how do we address it? you really hit a crucial question, with a political elite on both aisles, that sees itself as modern, post-modern secular and sophisticated. it's very hard to take religion seriously. working with people who have multitours in theater if you don't have religion, i don't care who youat you are if you don't
have religion, you will never understand this enemy. never. you won't be able to absorb the context of logic of suicide bombing. we have to take political distortion out of the intelligence cycle talk about the enemy as they talk about themselves. you can't win a war of ideas unless you begin to understand how the enemy thinks about themselves. if they say a holy warrior, if you say he's a disenfranchised, undereducated person who needs a job, you have allowed politics, you have allowed your own ideology to affect the intelligence cycle. you'll never get a strategy out of it. start by reading what the enemy says.
the most important writer in the muslim brotherhood. read abdullah zahi. jihad is an obligation of all believers, all muslims because we no longer have a caliphate. if we don't read these things we will not win this war. and allowing politics to get into our understanding of the enemy is akin to 1944 when we were about to embark on nor mandy mandy beach. don't say the word nazi. you would be fired. you must understand what mobilizes the enemy.
let's take politics out of it. let's talk about religion. we don't have to go and declare war against muslim. we have to be honest as somebody mentioned here, who are the majority of the victims of isis it's all christians and jews. it's sunnis. right. so let's talk honestly the most amazing chapter in this book by my old editor an walking genius on ideology. he identifies immediately what the key vulnerability of everybody we face today. whether it's hezbollah, hamas, isis, aqap it doesn't matter. the key vulnerabilityiesyiesyies of
all these characterics, is their vulnerability. if you're the best muslim you don't emulate fighter pilots. we have to destroy that narrative. the local sunnis have to destroy it with our assistance but we have to start and i think i the 15th year of the war might be a good time to start. >> thank you. right down here in the front. >> three books, i'd like to draw my question, to draw on your analogy dr. gorka of the
coca-cola and pepsi. a broader historical context the roman church and islam is equivalent to coke and pepsi it's good to have an enemy the argument could be made that the papacy was very much involved in the creation of islam and the drawing drawing drawings of prophet. >> do you have a question? >> speak between the relationship between the papacy and the development of islam expansion and contraction between the vatican and islamic interests. >> i'm going to take the privilege of being the chair here, so i think one of the things that both al qaeda and isis is trying to do is make
this into a religious war so i think the best thing that we can do to counter that narrative is make sure that, you know, we are not blaming the entire religion of islam for what's happening. i think that, you know, what's happening in terms of the violence and terrorism that we're seeing certainly, you know these people see themselves as muslims and they're very much using the religion of islam. i think it would be a mistake if we equated the billion-plus muslims that are here in the world as being equivalent to what's represented by isis and al qaeda. i'll stop there. did anyone else want to comment in. >> no, i have heard this gentleman's conspiracy theories before. i'm not going to address them. >> another question, right in the back.
>> i just want to take a moment to thank our great panel of speakers and our moderator. i specialize in terroristist radicalization and deradicalizations. overall, our panel has stressed issues of ideology and strategy if you could be -- if you could serve as an advisers what are the three key points for u.s.'s response. when we look at other countries as researchers we have seen they have definitely addressed issues of extremeismextremism. >> thank you. >> katherine do you have anything to say in terms of what's happening in africa, the after's government involved.
>> i think one of the biggest challenges facing the united states is that we have outsourced our decisionmaking on a lot of these issues to partners who may not have the same vision as to what a successful outcome is and here i'm thinking about the case in somalia where we rely heavily on ethiopia and kenya. and saudi arabia whose actions in yemen could be arguably said enflaming the conflict there and algeria very much self-interested in protecting its borders. to fight al qaeda and islamic. that's the first challenge, is actually taking ownership of the problems that these countries face and helping them to understand that their actions is driving some of the issues. the second is recognizing that the al qaeda threat the isis threat they are insurgeon is jengencyinsurgencies.
terrorism is a tactic that these groups use. so, the american partnership directly with the central state which is sometimes driving the grievances is not always the most beneficial one. we can't be simply going around a governing state within a sovereign territory, but it's something that we need to be cog cognizant of as we pursue that counterterrorism relationship. third, i think we need to recognize our actions inside and outside of different theaters play very concretely to these individuals. how do the sunnis feel as we're negotiateing an iran nuclear deal. we have set ourselves up to say
that we are trying to fight isis on behalf of the muslim world and yet we are only coming to the rescue of certain individuals and that's not playing well in a fight that is an essence sectarian in the middle east, and we're seen as fighting only the sunni. and not protecting those moderate sunni that otherwise would look to the united states and have looked to the united states for support. so think that's the three major changes that i would like to see come out of the discussions that we have seen going on for the past couple of months. >> i think katherine has such a great point there, when you think about how do we face the issue of deradicalization or this ideology that seems turned into coca-cola in two years. nobody is focused on what's happening on the ground. no one has been able to exploit
what baghdadi is doing, because in all honesty, we ignored it. in all honesty, nobody knew who to talk with in syria, who are the right players we were fumbling around trying to figure things out, as baghdadi was on the rise, and then you see the disenfranchised sunni across the border receiving this amazing message, it touched their hearts it reached right into their beliefs, it grabbed them and we ignored it again. because, just can't happen again, you know, they were the jv team, nobody wanted to pay attention to what was happening on the ground. and u.s. intelligence as well as european intelligence officials, as well as iraqis who were on the ground were warning over and over again, that something was
coming and nobody wanted to listen. because it didn't fit the narrative. because most of us are exhausted of war because most of us didn't want to see another ten years in the region. and i think you can't ignore that nair tif anymore, i think the reality is is that we are in a, you know, just from my own experience on the ground we're now going to be stuck in a long drawnout battle. not only a military battle, but an idea logical war that's going to require us to reach out not only to specific players but reaching out to everyone including the sunnis population. so that people like baghdadi and leaders that will follow him if he gets droned there will be someone else that will rise won't have the kind of power to
do what he's already done again. >> go ahead. >> so my three -- i'm a child of the cold war so that's my socialization and i miss it immensely. and i think we can learn a lot from the cold war, the first thing we have to do is we have to really aggressively support all those very brave sunni reformers that we are not helping at all. there are some very brave people in the middle east and north africa who day in and day out who are risking their lives how they're distorting jihad. how democracy and islam can't function together. these are people that america
don't touch. in a we have to do this now because they're on the front line and it's their lives as well. second, we need to push back at the strategic level against the propaganda, right now we don't do information operation the state department is 11,000 followers on twitter feed. one turkish woman broadcasting in the middle east who has 1.3 million followers. that's one woman. right? so we have to be strategic about our response and i recommend an incredible model from the end of the cold war called the active measures working group, a tiny organization with congressional staff as members of the active measures working group that targeted soviet propaganda and blew it out of the water. ignore the historic stuff theoretical stuff.
we need one of those run out of the white house today. and lastly, we need to ditch, you know, complete irrelevant concepts, as counterradicalization, it's a band aid on a chest wound. it's the equivalent of denazi my case. when can you do that, when you won. counterradicalization is a small little tactical activity that doesn't address the force of the enemy we're facing. what do we need? we need to support people like king abdullah ii. how many people in this room on january 1st, this man walked into the vatican of sunni islam
so sunni islam doesn't have a pope it has a vatican he walked in there with all of the most important people there, you have to help me execute a relinls you revolution to take them down because they're stealing our religion. we have been waiting 14 years for an arab leader to say that. what happened when he said that? crickets. not nothing on cnn. support local reformers at the grass roots level and not treat them like pari ya. >> thank you. i hope you know, what sara has said about iraq and how we weren't paying attention while isis was rising, i can only hope that it's a lesson for afghanistan and that the white house will get away from this idea that we have to put
political tliensime lines on withdraws. drop time lines and keep forces in afghanistan as long as we need to hopefully, there has been something learned that we pulled out all u.s. forces in afghanistan, quickly than we should have. i'm not saying we need to be fighting everywhere on all fronts. we certainly afford to keep u.s. forces imbedded in the countries where the threat is greatest and where our partners need our advice, training, and equipment. there's a question at the back. >> i'm a friend of sara i'm originally from afghanistan, and the conversations are really great, thank you so much. i just had a point that, you know coming from afghanistan and being a witness of what's
been happening i just believe there's a big difference between two generations. as sara said american people are exhausted of this several years of war, truly afghan people are exhausted of ongoing wars, many people they're social activist in kabul they're supporters of human rights. like dr. gorka said we need to find the right people to you know, build a strong relationship so that we can, you know, stand against the terrorist groups the extremists that are rising. there are so many people who will work towards supporting democracy and human rights and work for it. so i guess my question is how can the united states and international community in general, can cope with the right people in the local level to
fight or to stand against the growing extremists? >> sara, i want to say something about her, i'm so happy you're here, she's an example of a strong afghan woman, which we never see in the united states so much, we see the stories of afghan women who have been maimed or harmed or forced into their koll lets to never seen again, she stood up and fought for the rights of afghan women during karzai's passage of the sharia laws she's quite someone. she's an example of muslim women and muslim men all across the world that i have met, who i believe we have ignored.
and we have not reached out to and who can make the greatest difference for our nations and who can help find and established peace. i think that her point, i think you're right you asked a question, what do we do? i think we need to make valiant efforts, as people as lawmakers, as academics, to reach out to our muslim friends overseas, the families the people especially the women and children and build those relationships so that we don't end up the way we ended up today, in battles, you know and the kind of slaughter that she's had to witness and that many people around the world are living with every day. >> yeah i think, you know the u.s. is going to have to engage with the civil societies of these nations, that's the key
for moving forward. >> anymore questions? okay, over here, in the back. >> like dr. gorka i'm a child of the cold war. one of the soviet students once praising stallin and i asked, didn't he also kill a lot of people? i objected. he had not been exposed to that alternative idea. she thought that everybody did this. i can understand the struggle, presenting an alternative idea, but regard to the islamic state even zawahiri denounced the islamic state but yet people are joining, they have been exposed to the other idea. they're choosing to go with the
more savage. they're choosing to go even though they know the alternative, that's what i have difficulty understanding. >> yeah, we have to be really careful, one of our biggest sins strategically is when we mirror image. how can this be going on? how can the people put up with the decapitations and being shot in the head because you're not wearing a face veil? because to us it's shocking. don't impose your categories upon a population that may not share those categories. i would love to live 1,000 years under dictatorship rather than a year under democracy. that's phrase that i heard in afghanistan when i was there. yes, it may make us horrified. we have to understand what is the context of that savagery.
that's the only way you can kill 8 million you yanians by saying they're not human by starving them to death as stalin did. what the categories of that culture? what are they used to? what are the motivations? we get annoyed if the wi-fi in our hotel isn't fast. that's not the definition of governance in the fatah region. maybe an hour of electricity a day would be impressive. so, again it's shocking to us but let's step back, let's take off our cultural blinders, try to understand it in its -- if i
deemed the shia not to be human, anything's possible. but that doesn't mean we can't degrade their message. i mean we don't know if he's actually a -- he made that up as far as i'm concerned. why don't with have a propaganda campaign? that would hurt him a lot. so, understand the culture and not social scientists. >> thank you. we have time for one more question. so, let's see here, this is your first question, right okay so, right here in the middle.
i'm sorry, the rest of you can ask afterward. >> to continue the discussion on ideology, there was an article discussing what balancing the problem of security dilemma. he writes islamic state's effort to project this power will certainly trigger defensive reactions that play out in the religious public space. you're attempting to out islam by arguing on islamic terms, these regimes will move the terms of combat further and more deeply into the islamic state's battle field. places like saudi abe ra iarabia you look at places that dr. gorka made egypt trying to revolutionize islam how do you
win the battle of ideas without moving the terms of debate on a battle field that is, you know, preferred by the islamic state, thank you. >> superb question. that's an excellent question. you can't cannot win this war their terms, why, because the jihadi ideology, the ideology of global islamic it's a literary one. i don't have time to go into it. according to the tenth century a contradiction in the koran it cannot be a contradiction. they're just an apant contradiction. what do we know about mohammad's life? it was violent at the end. so, you know the principals of
aber case it will always benefit that. you got to take this out of the realm of the theologians and it has to be a politically driven thing. what you think of turkey today, the turkish state muslim and stable and function. not in the way we understand it a democracy. but the way it worked for turks. i'm you're president. what you do at home on your prayer route that is your thing. islam is not going to inform politics. i'm going to segregate it. that's the only way it's going to win. a battle that has to be fought on the political arena, saying islam is compatible. but we got to separate religion
from politics as the west has done. that's the only way we're going to win. debates will always fail the bad guys. >> that would focus in on each individual nation state. it would be each individual nation state. >> correct. >> great. i think that's a great note to add on. i hope you'll join me in applaud applauding a very excellent panel. [ applause ] that's great. thank you.
here's a look at our coverage this morning. road to the white house, former secretary of state hillary clinton outlines her economic agenda at the new school in new york city. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on. c-span. president obama and members of his administration take part in a conference on aging we'll take you live there at 10:00 a.m. here on c-span 3, the center of american progress for a discussion on u.s./china relations. and the common interest both countries have in the middle east. book tv is television for serious readers, join us this saturday starting a to at 11:00 a.m. for all-day live coverage
of the harlem book fair. with author talks and panel discussions. on sunday, august 2nd author and ma dina benjamin. live saturday, september 5th, we're live at the national book fair. a few of the upcoming live programs on c-span 2's book tv. australian prime minister tony abbot told members of parliament his country blames to rid his country of dual nationals. during his question time session, the prime minister touched on national security trade with china and government
funding for public schools. courtesy of apac, australia's public affairs channel. ♪ >> good day and welcome to qt rap. this is a look at the highlights of the most recent sitting of the australian parliament. one of the big issues, government officials paid people smugglers wads of cash on the open seas to turn around boat loads of asylum seekers back to indonesia. now, initially two ruled out the reports, said they never happened. when the prime minister was asked, he wouldn't say either way. the matter coming to a head in parliament. >> my question is to the prime minister, i refer to the attorney general's statement today about whether cash payments have been made to people smugglers.
the attorney general said, well, i don't believe that has occurred. so the question is academic. prime minister, if the foreign minister can deny that payments were made, if immigration minister can deny payments were made, and if your attorney general can deny payments were made, why can't you deny the payments were made? >> i call upon the prime minister. >> madam speaker, be very consistent position of this government has been not to comment on operational details. the consistent position of this government has been not to to comment on the operational details. >> there will be silence. >> what has been done. madam speaker, there is a fundamental difference between this government and members opposite. one obvious difference is that this government has stopped the votes where members opposite started the votes. that's one opposite difference.
but very important in this context is that this government does not feel the need to broadcast our intentions -- to our enemies. madam speaker, this is a government which does not feel the need to be noted itself in public if the only beneficiaries are our enemies. if the only beneficiaries are people who would do us harm. madam speaker, madam speaker, remember the only thing that really counts is that this government has stopped the votes. and we have done so in a way which is consistent with our position as a decent and humane country because the most decent and humane thing you can do is stop the votes, which is exactly what we have done. and madam speaker, members opposite are very interested in what they claim may have been payments to people smugglers. madam speaker, they put it in
the pockets of people smugglers. 50,000 illegal arrivals under members opposite at $10,000 a throw. a half a billion dollars is the fear. -- figure. that is the extent to which members opposite have enriched the people smugglers of indonesia and elsewhere thanks to members opposite. and members of our region, half a billion dollars thanks to members opposite. now, madam speaker, we have taken the money out of the pockets of the people smugglers by denying their business model, by stopping their evil trade, and by saving the lives that were otherwise being put at risk by the policies of members opposite. and now, madam speaker, i am very happy to answer any number of questions from members opposite about border protection policies.
i am very, very happy to answer any number of questions on this subject because it allows me yet another opportunity to assure the people of australia that their borders are safe under this government. if members opposite were to get back in government, the first thing which would happen is that the people smugglers would be back. >> i call the horriblebly leader-- honorbly leader of the opposition. >> thanks, madam speaker. my question is to the prime minister. by failing to deny reports that criminal people smugglers could be paid 30,000 u.s. dollars if they make it to an australian vessel, isn't the government providing a cash incentive for these dangerous voyages to take place? >> i call the honorable prime minister. >> no, we're not. no, we're not, madam speaker.
>> silence on both sides. >> no, we're not, madam speaker. and, again, i contrast what this government has done with what members opposite did when they were in government. and we have stopped the votes. members opposite stirred up the votes. under members opposite, there were almost 1,000 votes. there were more than 50,000 illegals arrivals by both. there was more than a thousand deaths at sea. and more than $11 billion in border protection. and madam speaker and members opposite, at $10,000 per person, some half a billion dollars found its way into the pockets of the people smugglers. now, madam speaker, there are a lot of unemployed people smugglers in indonesia thanks to this government. a lot of people were put into business. a lot of people who were put into business by members opposite. so, madam speaker, i am very, very happy, i am very, very happy to contrast this government's record when it comes to border protection with
the record of members opposite. and madam speaker, members opposite created rivers of gold in the pockets of the people smugglers of indonesia, and i want the australia people to know it is all stopped under this government. and i have concluded the answer, madam speaker. >> australia and china agreed to an historic free trade deal late last year. but pen wasn't put to paper until just recently. and that is when the details of this agreement finally came to light. the foreign minister was asked about those details in question time. >> thank you, madam speaker. my question is to the minister of foreign affairs representing the minister who trade in investment. will the minister update the house on the economy-wide benefits of the landmark china/australia free trade agreement. >> i call on the minister of
foreign affairs representing trade investment. >> thank you, madam speaker. i thank the member for his question. i acknowledge the fact that he is a real champion for his electorate. china is already our largest trading partner. our largest merchandise training partner. our largest source of overseas students. our second largest source of overseas. visitors. in total trade between the two nations, was $160 billion in 2013-2014. this trade agreement that was signed yesterday will provide even more opportunities for businesses therein and throughout australia. last year, for example, about two billion dollars of australian manufactured goods was sold into china but faced
tariffs of 47%. once a free trade agreement is fully implemented, 99.9% of manufactured goods from australia to china will enter duty free. this is an amazing outcome. likewise, we have energy and resources exports, they will also over time end duty free. for the first time, china has guaranteed an open door for australian businesses to build wholly owned and operated by australia restaurants and hotels in china. this is a huge boom for our tourism industry. there is a similar opportunity for aged care facilities and hospitals in certain locations. so, in tourism, hospitality, health services, all areas where australian businesses excel, they can take their schools to china and the benefits will be felt back here. the free trade agreement will also benefit australian companies already doing business
in china, including in areas such as architecture, logistics, manufacturing, banking. in fact, last year i chaired an investment and trade roundtable in one of china's fastest growing cities. and australian businesses were all present. some of them have been there for some time. but they all see greater opportunities to grow their businesses under the free trade agreement. likewise, opportunities back at home in agricultureal products, prices of food, as the minute officer of agriculture has told us, when australian winemakers are well renowned, they can compete with the best of the world. tariffs between 14% and 20%, they will be eliminated over time. huge opportunities in australia. the signing of the chapter as it is called is a major step in cementing closer relationships with china. our relationship with china has
never been stronger, deeper or more diversified. i'm confident the chapter will be the catalyst for future gain between our two countries. >> how to deal with national security issues has been a big challenge for the abbott government. its most recent legislation looks at stripping dual nationals of their citizenship if they have committed terrorist offenses here in australia or partnered with terrorists. this was something that the opposition wanted to press the government on. >> thank you, madam speaker. my question is for the prime minister. can the prime minister confirm to the house that on the 23rd of april, in answer to your question about terrorists, he said the following words, and then if people seek to return to australia, we want them arrested, prosecuted and jailed for a very long time. and this is where close cooperation between australia and the turkish authorities will help because we will identify them better, we will get more information about then, and that will help us to ensure they can't do any damage back in
australia. >> i call on the prime minister. >> that's right, madam speaker. that's exactly right. if they are not natural citizens, we want to keep them out. when they are not dual citizens, we want to keep them out. madam speaker, absolutely crystal clear. if you are just an australian citizen and you are a terrorist and you come back to australia, if you are a dual citizen and you leave australia to fight for a terrorist army, we never want you back. if you're a dual citizen and you leave australia to fight for a terrorist army, you've committed the modern form of treason. we will strip you of our citizenship because we never, ever want you back. now, madam speaker, we have a very, very clear position on this. we have had a very clear
position for some time now. we will strip citizenship from terrorists who were dual nationals. and i repeat, madam speaker, first of all, this position was that this was dog whistling. then there was the position that they would support it in principle. today, madam speaker, when asked what the attorney general would do with these terrorists fighting in the middle east so someone who is fighting in syria, attorney general, will get you get them back here? will you get them back here? not dual nationals, mate. not for dual nationals, mate. not for dual nationals. >> there will be silence. i will not have this wall of noise. there will be silence. the prime minister has the call.
>> madam speaker, they are getting very excited here because they are feeling very, very anxious about the divisions and the splits in their own ranks over national security issues. but madam speaker, the leader of the opposition can tell us where they stand. when it comes to stripping the citizenship from terrorists who are dual nationals, is it dog whistling? is that dog whistling? which is the leader of the op sags said it was. is it something they support in principal, which is what he said a week ago. or have they junked all of that and now say welcome back, we want you back here in australia which is what the attorney general said this morning. >> thank you, madam speaker. my question is to the prime minister.
last month, when asked if the power to strip citizenship from dual nationals will be exercised at our minister's discretion, the prime minister said, and i quote, that is correct. what made the prime minister change his mind on his citizenship proposal between then and now? >> i call on the prime minister. >> well, madam speaker, as i've said all along on this matter, the government's position is to strip citizenship from terrorists who are dual nationals. that was the announcement. that was the announcement by myself and the minister for immigration and border protection. that has been the constant position of this government. and madam speaker, we have always been determined to do this. we have always been determined to do this in the best possible way.
we have always been determined to do this without prior judicial process. and that's exactly what we have done. and that's exactly what will be done by the legislation that is introduced into the parliament tomorrow. madam speaker, i want to say how well the minister for immigration and border protection has worked with his colleagues. particularly with the attorney general -- >> there will be silence. >> with a piece of legislation, which entirely realizes the objective of this government. madam speaker, our objective is to keep our country safe. our objective is to strip the citizenship from terrorists who are dual nationals. our objective, madam speaker, is to ensure that if you are a terrorist, you are never going to be loose on the streets of our country. that's what this government will do. and i do look forward to the
support of the labor party in making this come about. >> something long celebrated that was called into question when a government friends paper presented an option for wealthier parents to pay for their children's education. the opposition takes up the question. >> my question is to the prime minister. did the prime minister's own department circulate the federation green paper that provides an option that would see the australian government walk away from any responsibility for funding public schools? >> i call on the prime minister. >> madam speaker, the department of prime minister and cabinet has certainly been engaged in very constructive discussions
with a whole range of state officials on a whole range of issues about a whole range of subjects as part of the federation reform paper. but madam speaker, as for the matters that were in the paper this morning, let me say this. the australian government does not and will not support a main test for public education full stop. end of story. if the state wants to charge wealthy parents fees for public schools, that's a matter for them. charging wealthy parents for their children to attend schools is not this government's policy. let me repeat that, madam speaker. charging wealthy parents for children to attend public schools is not this government's policy. it is not not now. it won't ever be. madam speaker, i entirely endorse the statement earlier today by the minister of education. >> my question is to the prime minister.
and i refer to the prime minister's previous answer. given the prime minister has said that if the states impose a schools tax, that is a matter for them, what action has the government determined to take should any state or territory impose a school's tax? >> that is stretching a long way towards hypothetical, but i will give the prime minister the call. >> madam speaker, i repeat, it is not the commonwealth's policy. it is not the commonwealth's policy. and what the states and territories do in respect in public schools is entirely a matter for them. but madam speaker. >> silence on my left. >> opposite are always trying to
raise yet another scare campaign. there are some libel leaders who -- >> member rankin. >> i notice that the south australian labor government is prepared to have a serious talk about tax reform. but madam speaker, that is why the government is prepared to have a serious talk about energy reform, including nuclear energy in this country. and madam speaker, the south australian labor premier said and i quote when asked about this today, it's only a discussion paper. but he went on to say this is the south australian labor paper we have been asking them to canvass the broader range of options. there's a broad debate going on about commonwealth state relations. it is a good thing. so madam speaker, madam speaker,
we are perfectly happy to see a broad debate about the future of reform in this country. but i do have to say, madam speaker, the actual running of public schools is entirely a manner for the states and territories. it is entirely a matter for the states and territories. madam speaker, i hear members opposite cat calling. i can inform members opposite that over the next four years there will be a 28% increase, a 28% increase in commonwealth funding for public schools. so i say to members opposite, you can run all the scare campaigns you like, but in the end people want to know where you stand. and madam speaker, they are starting to get some answers. what members opposite stand for is taxing super for putting up your rent and bringing back the people smugglers.
>> on the day the government presented national security legislation to parliament, the prime minister went down the road to asio, the most prominent and biggest spy agency to meet with some of the officers there. they brought cameras, which was a problem when some of the maps on the table were claimed to be classified, in full view of the cameras. the opposition pounced. >> thank you, madam speaker. my question is to the prime minister. i refer to the visit by the prime minister, the attorney general, the minister officer of justice to asio headquarters with television cameras in tow. prime minister, whose idea was this and what security protocols were put in place for the prime minister's photo opportunity? >> i call upon the prime minister. >> madam speaker, this is a curious question from the leader of the opposition.
it's a very curious question from the leader of the opposition because, madam speaker -- >> there will be silence on my left. >> my ministers and i went to asio headquarters yesterday to receive a briefing from the director general of asio. and the suggestion coming from members opposite is that -- >> i will not put up with that barrage of noise. it is a serious question you've asked. now listen to the answer. the prime minister has the call. >> and the -- >> and that includes the member from mcmahon. >> and the suggestion from members opposite is that asio in some way conducted this briefing unprofessionally. members opposite are impugning the professionalism of asio. madam speaker, the idea that this briefing would have been unprofessional, the idea that
there would have been released any classified information is insulting -- >> the prime minister -- the members are point of order. >> thank you for the call, madame speaker. >> my question is to the prime minister. yesterday when asked for copies of maps on display at the prime minister's media event asio replied we are unable to provide documents. they are for official use only. this morning described as carefully and unclassified. what contacted the prime minister, his office, ministers or their offices have after the initial response? >> i call the prime minister. >> madam speaker, i simply repeat what i've said before
that it's entirely appropriate that ministers should seek a briefing from asio on the day -- introduced into the parliament. madame speaker, again, i wonder why members opposite should have taken it upon themselves to impugn the professionalism. the idea that officers included -- >> member is warned. >> somehow expose classified documents to the world is just wrong. madam speaker just wrong. asio officers are highly committed professionals and absolutely know their craft. the idea that they would permit classified documents to be somehow exposed to the world is just wrong. i say to members opposite i would have thought that you would have had more respect for
the people running our national security. >> there will be silence on both sides. >> thank you, madam speaker. i can assure the house that -- >> the member will resume -- one more time and you leave under 94a. that is an absolute abuse of standard orders and will not be tolerated. the prime minister has the call. >> madame speaker, the shadow attorney general, the man who thinks that terrorists should be brought back to australia, the shadow attorney general -- >> member resume your seat. resume your seat. prime minister has the floor. >> madam speaker, who does the shadow attorney general think produced the maps in question? does the shadow attorney general
think that somehow i rolled up a few maps and took them into asio? madam speaker, the maps in question were produced by asio -- >> the member will leave under 94a. >> and is absolutely crystal clear for repeated statements including by the director general of asio they were unclassified maps. madam speaker, let's have no more of this childishness from members opposite who are imputing the professionalism. >> and that's where we leave. thanks for joining us. the long winter break is upon us. we'll see you when parliament resumes.
this weekend on c-span's road to the white house two major political events from iowa and we're the only place you can watch or listen to these events in their entirety friday night at 8:00 eastern live in cedar rapids for the iowa democratic party hall of fame dinner. it will mark the first time all five democratic presidential candidates share the same stage. on saturday we'll be live in ames for the family leadership summit where nine republican candidates are scheduled to speak. on c-span c-span radio and c-span.org. c-span's road to the white house 2016, we take you there. >> we're live this morning and coming up next a discussion about u.s./china relations and the two countries common interest and concerns in the middle east. specialists from the center of american progress, china united foundation and shanghai saturday
zboirnl studies review the findings. those groups are hosting this event. coverage getting under way on c-span 3. >> good morning, everybody. welcome to the center for american progress. so glad to see folks here on a rainy monday morning. thank you for joining our program on u.s./china cooperation in the middle east. i'm the vice president for national security and international policy here. i would like to welcome our distinguished guests from shanghai and from shanghai institute of international studies. they have both managed to get to
washington despite a typhoon that disrupted all air operations out of shanghai so we're extremely happy you're here safe and southern and we hope the jet lag won't keep you from raising some strong arguments and lively discussion this morning. back in february of 2014, cap, the china/u.s. exchange foundation issued a widely discussed report on the concept avenue model for major power relations. that report stressed that u.s./china relations needed to be more than about building trust and avoiding conflict. they needed to focus on forward looking actions and to tackle joint problems like counterterrorism and climate change. at a private dinner following that launch of that report some months before i joined the center for american progress i hear a very lively discussion took place on the middle east. the group discussed whether the u.s. and china could proactively
coordinate smart policy on a range of common areas from energy security to countering violent extremism. it seemed there were common interests. it was not clear whether the two nations wanted to work together or to figure out how to do so. the report released today on u.s./china cooperation in the middle east includes individual contributions from researchers from c. a.p. and s.i.s. and a culmination of a year and exchanges between the two organization. it started with that dinner and continued through a series of video conferences and high level dialogue in beijing, china in march of this year. both sides viewed the middle east as a region with incredible promise but mared by decades and centuries of political unrest, uncertainty and conflict. they viewed u.s. policy towards the region in the impact of the u.s. rebalance to asia. they asked whether the u.s. and china can find areas of win-win cooperation far afield while
managing regional concerns and growing tensions in asia itself. they looked at egypt's prospects for future stability, the legacy of the arab spring and ideas for coordination between the u.s. silk road and china's concept. long standing issues in the u.s.-china relationship remain in some cases moving in a positive direction and some significant areas towards greater tension. today we look for common ground in a volatile region of great strategic importance to both countries. the united states and china have a special responsibility as actors with global influence. it would be powerful to the united states and china if they could work together and through the international system to help the middle east towards a new era of greater stability. before we kick off the panel discussion, it's my great honor to welcome alan wong, executive director of the china-u.s. exchange foundation for some opening remarks. alan has been a vital partner
coordinating and facilitating c. a.p. dialogues with the shanghai institute and others and it's a great pleasure to have him with us again. alan. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. and if i could add my welcome to this panel discussion. i note that very soon the world will celebrate 70 years anniversary of the end of world war ii. it reminds me somehow that how fortunate my generation has been that we have seen no major conflict of that magnitude in our time. but it also reminds me that you know, we shouldn't take this for granted. that there are plenty of predictions that an emerging power like china will inevitably
come in to conflict with an established power like the united states. and if this were to happen, the consequences will be truly unthinkable. but my colleagues from c. a.p. and the chinese international studies want to believe other wise that there's nothing pre-ordained about this. and we also believe we should grant every opportunity and create the necessary conditions to improve mutual understanding to expand strategic trusts and to help establish an even stronger foundation for u.s.- u.s.-china bilateral relations which is the most important relation of our time. the the seventh strategic
dialogue in high level people to hem exchange have just taken place recently. i was going through the list of accomplishments of both events and was pleasantly surprised and encouraged by the breadth and depth of the items that were listed. in the s and ed alone there were 127 items listed. and despite what we read and hear every day about these agreements between our two countries, from south china sea, cyber activities, and the new national security laws of china, et cetera. overall relations have been on an upward steady trend. again, we must also not take these for granted but look beyond our bilateral relations.
we must also explore possible means of cooperation in other parts of the world. china-u.s. exchange foundation is privileged to be a part of this. to join our very close and very capable partners c.a.p. and also of course shanghai institute of international studies to explore cooperation in the middle east which is the most volatile region in the world. through their unrelenting efforts for more than a year they have produced the study. and i'm very much looking forward to the panel discussion and to their conclusions and recommendations. so may i once again thank all of the colleagues in c.a.p. in s.i.s., on behalf of my
organization which is a nonprofit organization based in hong kong to promote u.s.-china relations. thank you very much. >> i would like to invite the panelists in any order. thank you all for being here. i'm really excited to have this great group with us at c.a.p. this is one of the more innovative things we've done. people don't think about the u.s. and china and the middle east but the fact is both of us have incredibly vital strategic interests in the region and there's obviously scope for cooperation and discussion. clearly a lively dinner set off a year of back and forth and dialogue and culminated in us being able to issue a report
today. i'm just going quickly let you know who is on the stage with us. immediately to my right is dr. xi from shanghai institute. she is an expert in arms control and nuclear deterrence issues very relevant in the middle east. immediately to her right is rudy deleon who is a senior fellow here at the national security team at c.a.p. he's been at c.a.p. since 2007. many of you know rudy well. he's a former deputy secretary of defense for the united states. he has been very deeply engaged in u.s. china relations for many years and actually i think among the people here he splits his time traveling between the middle east and china more than anyone else. so perfectly suited for this job today. immediately to his right is dr.
yang senior fellow from shanghai institute. he specializes in china strategy in asia and has been able to apply his deep knowledge of how china approaches regional relations to looking at the middle east. finally, brian katolis a senior fellow here and runs the middle east program at the center for american progress also well-known to many of you and he focus primarily on the middle east and south asia. this was his opportunity to get exposure to china and think about how these two major powers could potentially cooperate in the region. what i'm going to do is i'm just going to ask each of our panelists to give a few introductory remarks. we'll go into a discussion and then open it up to the audience for questions and answers. i think i'll start with dr.
yang. welcome and thank you for finding your way here with flight cancelations and all of the above. >> thank you very much. it's a privilege to be here. as in china we say if you want to play a role in think tanks you have to be slow, the grilling is for people in the united states. but i'm a little bit different from some people. some people play as the role of a doctor. they try to emphasize on the questions, problems for china-u.s. relations. very often i would like to play a role of a paintist. i always look for the most
beautiful part of china-u.s. relations without neglecting the problems. now, what my thinking are about a joint project are china-u.s. cooperation on the middle east affairs, i think there are three reasons why we embarked on this very meaningful project. first of all the strategic importance of the middle east region. and this is the concentration of all the difficult, complex relations of country to country, major power, tribes religions
et cetera. if you want to understand how the international affairs are working you must understand how it works. secondly some people say now with the reduced dependence of united states on the middle east oil and the gas because of the shale revolution et cetera, the united states interest is on the wane, but i don't think so. this is a very superficial and shallow understanding. the united states understands they spend most of their money manpower, political will and just look at secretary of state john kerry.
how many times after traveling he is doing on the middle east affairs. and also this is a place where china and the united states could complimentary each other. the united states is the most strong strongest and influential country in the region whereas china maintains good relations with all the conflicting parties. and also china's dependence on middle east not only the energy but also on others are increasing. and china is becoming from a regional power to a global power. so china needs to play a more
proactive role to carry on more responsibilities, et cetera. so there's a lot that we can discuss, we can work together. the united states and china do not necessarily see eye to eye on everything. however we could work on the overarching concept of new model of new major power relations between china and the united states to tackle these very serious challenges and this is why and how both parties come together thanks to the china-u.s. exchange foundation in hong kong and very pleased that this is what you have in your hand i enjoy to report.
thank you. >> thank you. i'll turn to rudy now for a few minutes for opening remarks. >> great. thank you. thank you very much for once again the two of us were co-editors of this project and it really did begin in february 2014 when we were having the discussion on the new major powers relation. this was a chapter in a very recent book that looked at rising powers and established powers from the perspective of germany and britain and i think for no other reason but many others the fact is in the 21st century united states and china will be setting a different course one vastly different than traditions out of europe and i think it's reflected in the audience here today where we see many friends many engaged voices in the debate both across
the pacific but also some of the leading experts on middle east policy here in attendance as well. so when we had our discussion more than a year ago, we noted that, in fact working together means working together as two countries on areas where there can be win-win but more important to have the dialogue where there are issues of disagreement. now as we press forward and as we look to a summit meeting in washington that is coming between president obama and president xi in the september time range we know they will be working together as highlighted by the most recent strategic dialogue that just occurred but there are other issues of disagreement most prominencely right now the cyber question which is front page news and has been front page news as well as
some of the issues of the south china sea. but in these video conferences and dialogue and in the discussion that brian and i as well as dr. melanie hart and john podesta were able to participate in march we were looking at how we might be able to forage a better working relationship on the critical issues in the middle east. it's the energy center, but finding ways to make a constructive response in dealing with extremism we've already seen the consequences of extremism spreading to the west. that was 9/11 and some of the attacks in europe, france in particular. the fact that all of our security forces were on vigorous alert over this fourth of july weekend to deal with some of the extreme threats coming from the
middle east, we know that these are issues that are not going away. and we know that there are other stakeholders in the region, including china and that one of the things that's extremely important is where there is common ground, can the u.s. and china work together and more importantly not be played off against each other among all of these constituencies. so in our discussion, both in the video conference i'll let brian discuss egypt and the middle east geopolitical issues as well as dr. wu but one area on the new silk road, one belt one road the chinese term for the same issues, we looked at this as how we might use economic strategy to find complimentary and consistent ways to work together in central asia collaborating in
complimentary ways looking to expand local economic growth through connectivity in a very, very critical region. and so the silk road initiative takes us to pakistan which is an avenue to try to work in a constructive way but recognizing that pakistan was the origins of the al qaeda in afghanistan as well and so how can these two common interests of the u.s. and china in finding a better path forward in the middle east work together in central asia in pakistan, in afghanistan, in a complimentary and consistent way? collaboration is important because this is one of the least integrated, least developed areas of the world and that they suffer from an insecurity that can push forces into the
west as well as east. and so we also know that this is a region with rising youth bulges and that they are projected to face increasing unemployment. so similarly the ability to meet the sustainable security goals in this region is one that will require political and diplomatic attention as well as an economic focus if we are to find a constructive path going forward. i would like to thank our colleague at c.a.p. along with brian harding along with mr. awad who are part of our developing these issues and putting forward the report today. i think it's interesting that when you talk with people as we have c.a.p. and shanghai institute, that you can find that framing the question and
starting a discussion putting words down on paper can actually lead to a constructive path forward. we'll have our differences we'll have issues that are of critical divide but that there are common interests and that it will be important for the u.s. and china to work together on these issues of central asia, on these issues of the middle east as we move forward. so thank you for hosting us. thank you to you for co-editing this paper and for always being on the video conferences which when there's 12 hours time difference, one side is either getting up very early in the morning, or staying late in the office and so we thank folks and we thank alan wong and the china-u.s. foundation for partnering with c.a.p. as well. so thank you. >> any reflections on this project or your thoughts? >> thank you very much. i'm very glad to be here.
i have this opportunity to join the discussion, china-u.s. cooperation on middle east affairs. i read the report and i share with many opinions of the colleagues presented in the report. i think that -- i totally agree that china-united states actually have many common interests in middle east. the two countries can cooperate with each other in this region. and another thing i want to mention here is that actually i think chinese and american scholars share a vision, what is happening in middle east now, they both notice that there is a kind of great transition transformation in middle east now. it is just opening.
and it is justin process of the transformation. and china and the united states to some degree have to adapt to that kind of change. that's a very big change in middle east. it seems that the united states is reframing a kind of strategy to middle east. and they are trying to build up kind of new balance in the region, to readjust relationship in that region. of course the united states is a major player in middle east. china at current stage is still as not active as the united states, but just like the professor just said now china will be more active in the region. so the two countries have to consider how we cooperate with
each other. big change very important in the region in the world. and thirdly i want to say about the project of china and the united states. i do think there are some parts that the two countries can cooperate with each other. it's very interesting they are overlapping geographically in this region especially in afghanistan, central asia countries and south asia, india, pakistan. so that's the region that they can cooperate and that the other thing is that they pay a lot of attention to economic development in this region and i think that's the way to some degree stabilize the region and
can contribute to the stability of the region. so it is possible for china and united states to coordinate on that kind of better concrete project. and on the silk road project, the two countries, i mean china and united states need more dialogue discussions because this project designed actually from different departments. for example, the silk road is proposed by the state department but each other basically -- how to say -- in charge by the states, nation development in the reform committee. so it's basically about economic development. so how to -- how to say -- carry out that kind of dialogue between the governments and also the people very important to
push forward the cooperation in this regard. so i will just stop here. >> thank you so much and it's great to have you here. and we're turning to brian. brian has explored the trickier area. common interests are pretty clear. how those interests are prioritized and how you approach countries going through dramatic challenges and how we approach countries that have internal problems where we would like to help them move in a certain direction. those are approached very differently obviously by the united states and china in many cases, profoundly differently and brian has looked at both at egypt in particular in this report and previous work and also in pakistan where i think there's some interesting new areas that we can have some discussion about later. brian, a few minutes. >> thank you all for coming and thank you both, we appreciate the dialogue. we at the center in our middle east work have had an extensive
dialogue with key actors in the middle east and the region and then obviously with our friends in europe about what to do at this time of change. and doing this project was essential to try to look ahead with a longer term perspective of where things are going in the region. what are the possibilities. what i thought i would do is make one overarching comment about the u.s.-china cooperation in the region and then talk about three issues. one, the issue of the silk road. second egypt and then third iran briefly although our reports don't address iran it's a very important day. quite obviously today in the middle east, the snapshot is that key countries and a lot of nonstate actors are in a fierce competition for power and influence and in some parts of the middle east like iraq and syria we've seen essentially the tearing douchb governance and basic stability and structures. if there's one message from the package of our reports and our dialogue is that the u.s. and
china as two great global powers should avoid pick sides and there are many different sides in the conflict in the middle east. it would accelerate quite likely the process of fragmentation. i come out of this dialogue and this report hopeful that there's a basis for discussion but also mindful there's a lot of more work that needs to be done between the u.s. and china because though we may have common long term interests in the broad sense of things when it gets down the details of what we do it's very difficult. the u.s. remains in the dominant military power in the middle east. for all of the talk and sometimes very loose talk of some of our partners in the region, some of our closest allies of the u.s. being disengaged no outside power has the capabilities that the u.s. does and other actors as we know including china have benefitted from this overarching strategic security umbrella that we provided for decades.
it's framed. it's changing in the middle east. i think the u.s. is just at the start of repositioning its overall strategy to the region. at the same time and this is where i think we'll get into sort of this broader point, china has had a long term strategy not only in the middle east but around the world of non-intervention on a region that wants outside actors to choose sides and in essence i see china's role as trying to develop favorable economic relationships while avoiding the many conflicts of the region. in some ways i thought about this. what the obama administration i think tried to do in the broad strokes in 2013 when you think about it, of trying use diplomacy to engage the israelis and palestinians, trying to use diplomacy with is syrians and chipz had their four point plan in 2012.
all of these things led by secretary kerry they tried to do in the middle east is very much what china would like to do. as we see from 2014 and the lesson of 2014 that the region taught us especially groups like isis taught us is that all of those aspirations of just trying to use diplomacy without those other tools of security measures, it's harder i think to achieve results and here we are in 2015. i think the fundamental challenge that the u.s. and china to round out this overall point faces in trying to explore these avenues for cooperation is to try to avoid the mistakes that were made in previous decades and in the last century by other outside powers. that in essence the way i see the middle east and its fragmentation and lack of capacity in certain key countries like yemen and parts of egypt the u.s. and china need to avoid the mistakes that were made by other outside powers in the 20th century of extracting
value from a region without helping the region produce its value. we can all think of models both present day and previous ones where outside powers went into regions and essentially just took what they needed for their economy, without helping those regions build up those structures. and i think a key lesson of today's middle east is very much the problems of the middle east are borne out of not only the extremism of today but some of the mistakes that were made in the previous decade. so really briefly on the new silk road we're in broad agreement, rudy mentioned it and others have too. it is essential i think, for key countries in the region in the middle east where there's a lack of trade and transportation within the region itself that if you go to egypt and i go to egypt regularly you go to some of the lesser developed parts of the region not the gulf countries, there's an extreme need for the types of investments that i think china is capable of doing.
the u.s. i think, is capable i think, is less willing after the last 15 years or so given the costs. and there's a complimentary there perhaps energy development, quite obviously china is becoming much more dependent on the energy resources of the region. but the overall and the overarching vision of investing in infrastructure and trade and transport, to help the middle east become this hub that links asia, africa and europe i think is a long term project where we should continue the discussions and see where it maps up. and, again this point, though of creating value within the region while we do that is essential. value meaning how does the u.s. and china help create jobs and job growth in places like egypt if our countries come in with approaches that don't address the youth bulge and things like this. the types of extremism we've seen on full display in the middle east, i think will only grow.
so if we have an extractive approach one that doesn't try to foster local institutions i think that will be very difficult and i think that's what we need to discuss in the new silk road. second on egypt and on a time when everyone is focused on iran and given today's deadline on talks and then isis and given the fact that we have a program tomorrow with general alan on isis it's important to keep egypt on the agenda for obvious reasons. it's the most populace country in the entire region. i think for the last four years it's teethered on "the brink" of political and economic and social collapse. i think it's still in a very tenuous phase at this point. when we talk about adopting or adapting the new silk road concepts in places like egypt there's places where it fits in with the president's attempt to build the second suez canal and help egypt become a much more functional place when it comes
to linking parts of the world together. where i think we may have some differences of views and we can talk about this is how is the best way for egypt to approach the extremism and terrorism problem? and as we see in the last few weeks this problem is not only gotten worse, it has actually made things much more difficult in places not only in the sinai peninsula but in cairo proper and this is where again, i think not only what type of inclusive economic growth we want to try to promote to help these societies establish value but what type of politics do these societies have. what's sustainable? in my view egypt today is on "the brink" something much worse than we've seen before and cracking down on not only islamist and non-islamists and not allow space to create sustainable security. last thing i would say and even though our reports don't mention it and we wisely didn't mention
it because of the uncertainty in the iran talks throughout this whole period when we had these dialogues. you get into the business of analyzing something that's not complete. this town is quite good at that and do more of that even if there's a deal or no deal. we'll spin into camps for the rest of the summer on what happens on iran. though we didn't talk much about it in the paper we had discussions on the sidelines and to me i think we obviously u.s. and china have shared interest of preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. but the devil is in the details of actually how we do that and deal or no deal it's hard to analyze that. if there's a deal i think both of our countries have a responsibility to actually be very, very serious about how we implement all aspects of what that deal looks like. i'm not certain things like people talk about the snap back of sanction ss of violations.
issues of monitoring and verification are essential. china going back to my overall comment that it stands on non-intervention overall on foreign policy becomes much more difficult when you have a detailed agreement or when you don't. and then how do we actually figure out what's the best ways to cooperate? china as we know is iran's largest trading partner. this implicates them in a different way than the united states does. it will have a different perspective. china as we know also from its history has had a history of weapon sales in the region and around the region and i think we need to stay focused on that. china, i think no matter what happens, deal or no deal on iran will have that difficult balancing act that we all have how to maintain positive relationships with riyadh and saudi arabia. i'll close by saying the middle east is in a period of
disequilibrium. what we try to do in these papers, the outside powers the u.s. and china show be as constructive as possible. if we make a mistake by choosing sides say for instance in iraq or syria on different sides rather than trying to foster some sense of common goals there i i think would be very difficult. i think in conclusion, though it's harder when you get into the details of coops because the u.s. has its own views. it actually believes i think still unbalance feeding terrorism and extremism needs not solely a military approach bust needs a different type of political engagement approach and diplomacy and in some ways the toughest diplomacy is with our closest friends like egypt. i'll close there. >> thank you very much, brian. lot of food for thought from all you and i want to make sure
there's time for members of the audience to get to some questions. i want to get to a few important issues. while i have the prerogative of the chair. the first thing i would like to ask about, i'll ask both of our chinese friends to help us think through, how does china view this emergence of isis and specifically this unfolding and metastasizing of global terrorism. i ask particularly in light of the news just this weekend of tensions that were sparked in the china-turkey relationship. it sort of seems that china is starting to be affected by terrorism and extremism much more in the way that western countries have felt they are being affected by it facing
similar challenges. how do you both ensure you're addressing the concerns and needs of a domestic population and preventsing a move to extremism and then somehow participating with other countries in countering these global networks. i think it's not clear to many americans what china sees its role as in saying international coalition against isis in how it analyzes the connection between the global extremist moments and what's affecting china directly and i turn first to dr. yang and then dr. wu. >> thank you. this is a very good question. china hopes that the emerging and the worsening of the isis -- they have a lot of other
names -- the extremism and the terrorism is a great challenge to the whole international community. and we think we should not only tackle with the symptoms but also the root causes which could be traced into the local development, domestic politics stagnation of economics and religious sectarianism, et cetera. so this is a real new challenge to the world, to the united states, to china and others. secondly this is even more
serious challenge than, let's say, 9/11 or the others because in the year 2001, these terrorists were still dispersed. and also intangible. but now they even created the so-called state. they are there. and they inserted a great turbulence chaos, anti-humanities, et cetera and this should never be allowed. this is why china and the united states and other countries joined our efforts in condemning the isis. however, because china and the
united states have different practices. for instance, you have your airlines, coalition of the willing and able, et cetera but china has other ways of thinking and implementing. thirdly, china itself is a victim of terrorism and extremism. for instance the symbol of china, the heart of the country tiananmen was attacked by terrorists. just like an attack against white house or something of the
same value. and now we found that thousands of terrorists and the extremists smuggled out into syria, iraq, to fight and to gain experience. and a few of them smuggled back. so these are the real anti-human challenges and china wants to work with the united states and others to do that. so men in china we pay greater attention to the harmonization of societies. we try to eliminate the poverty.
one of the soils for brewing this extremism and the terrorism. of course, sometimes like the strong medicine to kill the cancer they have the side effects. 0 some occurred because we do not know what is the better way. some could be solved or improved in the course of development of the medicine. and so we also need to learn from the united states and other countries. so i think i better stop there and let dr. wu. >> i just want to add a few points. the first is that i think there might be many reasons for the
rising of the terrorism and extremism. but very important reason is that the balance of power, that the original balance of power in middle east to some degree broken and that now we need a little bit resume that kind of regional order or kind of system. but it consumes time. i mean we united states and other countries maybe make efforts towards that kind of direction, but very important for us to have the countries in the middle east for their development. so to some degree we still need some kind of patience in that kind of process. and second thing i want to say is that the countries like china
and united states really need to strengthen our cooperation, especially i think that for our border on that kind of border protection that kind of thing for financial issues. and also i think that the countries need to major powers outside of the region need to create some kind fof bill for the region to stabilize the relationship and china and united states maybe need to invest more to that kind of society building which is conducive to that kind of stabilizing the situation. generally there's a lot of areas. china and united states can cooperate not just on the military side but also on the social financial other areas. >> if i could add -- again the root causes i think are essential and looking at the
region holistically i think is important. and the idea of a harmonization within societies is a great ideal for a place like syria . . . one is boethd both the u.s. and china discussing quite candidly. their support, whether it is iran or our friends in the air rob gulf. it is deeply unhelpful, whether it is in yemin or syria or iraq, that is contributing to the fragmentation of the society.
it is hard to explain because it is so complex. countries that have more resources, quite often from oil, are deploying those resources in proxy fights throughout the region. getting to at least a cease-fire in some of these fronts, if not all of them, is essential to do that. that requires more candid talk openly and quietly from the u.s. to key partners in the gulfle region. there is still a worrisome role it plays. we need to be serious about the a symmetric threat that is posed, not helpful to the broader region. the second, more mundane, when we get to the details of implementing an economic agenda. when i think of egypt, i think of a country that has so many
different problems. one thing it hasn't done yet, a reform of the energy subsidy, a problem that any country has had. the president took one half step in the right direction. without energy reform they are eating up their budget to do infrastructure development and set the frame for long-term stabilization and prosperity in egypt. those sorts of things aren't as ambitious but are very tough to do because of systems in place for decades. if we actually had a meeting of the minds and talks about the details of how to help egypt move through its next phase, i think we would agree on the need for bureaucratic reform, better governance. u.s. and china might disagree on the style of governance about what cc is using right now. i think there is a lot of work
to be done. i clothes by i close by saying, the outside powers of the u.s. and china can do a lot to set the table but it requires the region to stay the hand of vengeance and push through on historic and difficult economic reforms like the energy and sub sidsidy reform in egypt. >> i should have noted that our report is available online for those that are watching on c-span and elsewhere on the video. if you go to the cap website, the report is posted and available to all. building out because i think just fact that we started this conversation with our china friends is important but one of the things that we have come to know is that the middle east is not a single issue. it is the security.
when president obama talked about the rebalanced asia there was this view that somehow the u.s. was losing its interest or its commitment to the middle east. i think we have completely disproven that no the only in our dialogue by finding mutual goals for the region but reflected by the administration's hard efforts to continue to focus on the security of not just simply a single issue, the defeat of isis, but the security of israel, the free flow of energy out of the persian gulf to deal with the prevention of extremism in individual countries other than in iraq and syria and that moving forward, if we want to broaden, you get into the questions of economic strategy and diplomatic strategy. it is going to have to be more than simply what we have seen in the past. skin in the game is an american
col colloquyal term. we are doing it because of the importance of creating stability. alan wong in his opening comment noted that for 70 years, asia has been able to see this peaceful rise, because it has not been consumed with regional rivalries, but, instead, everyone can focus on economic development. that is unfortunately not the case in the middle east. we see a variety tension points coming together. as we try to move beyond simply the security questions to the questions of can diplomacy in the impasse with syria or can there be a program that does
prevent an iranian nuclear weapon. they are going to require cooperation that is consistent with the major powers' model. i think it is one where the u.s./china dialogue is in its initial phase. certainly, these will be good issues to put on the agenda for washington as well as the economic to decipher the other immediate issues in the u.s./china dialogue when we get to september. >> let misie see if i can press any or all of you on this. three of you have accepted the rebounds to asia and america's increasing energy independence don't mean anything about changing u.s. strategic interest in the middle east. the united states will continue to be as interested, will continue to be as focused. there are voices on the left and the right certainly of the political spectrum across in the
united states that would not only say that's wrong, they would say, the united states should really take a big step back that china is and the rest of asia are enjoying the benefits of american security for their energy supplies and letting america do the heavy lifting against terrorism and regional fragmentation. the only way to get others to step up for them will be to step back a bit. so do you really believe that u.s. interest will stay the same? i think there is a broad center in the united states that thinks that is vital because the u.s. should play a leadership role in ensuring there is a better world. most of us agree with that. do you really think there is no prospects for a change in how the united states in the next decade or two actually looks at the middle east. >> i said i think we're at a
shift of the start of the strategy in the region. no matter who becomes president in 2016. the lessons that have learned going into the iraq war, getting more deeply engaged and built on sort of a framework of u.s. engagement that essentially began decades and decades ago but got deeper after 1979. the whole security footprint we have had in the region. i actually think it is changing as we discuss it. obama is unique in the fact that he is reflecting, i suspect where the next administration might go which is not full disengagement. no other outside power has the presence that the u.s. has but when you look at it and your question, left right just a general consensus here i this i there is a general view that the u.s. need not bear all of the burden, that we need to figure out ways to build partnerships
first within the region. that's where i think the coalition that the obama administration started to assemble against isis, is the makings of something that may have some potential. there are some common interests there amongst all of the different actors. the notion that other countries, like china, have already been involved in maritime security and other things, how do we actually welcome that in a way that the u.s. still remains present. we are not disengaging but we are changing the nature of your engagement. i suspect in the 2020s, no matter what we will still have a unique relationship with israel. no one else has done this and will continue to do if. throughout the region we really would welcome who are the partners most reliable and capable from within the region and, "b," who else can help? my main point is that the u.s. whether it is republican or democrat, right or left, in 2015, they are looking at the middle east and scratching their heads and wondering, what more
can we do differently? we got hyper engaged an we are involved in places like iraq. we pulled back and things seemed to get worse in certain places. now, we are back in a little bit. one of the lessons is we can't do it all. maybe others disagree. but, i don't think the u.s. is going to sort of step back completely. i do think we are at the start of defining how do we help the region, a pathway for it to become much more integrated with itself and with the rest of the world. the u.s. can't do it by itself. >> i think the strategic importance of the middle east to the united states remains there. however, the emphasis of the u.s. strategic attention might be changing along with the course of developments. for