tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN May 10, 2016 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
countries have different goals than profit maximizing, which usually leads to the drive to increase productivity because that's how you increase your profit margin. they have the incentives of providing employment or public goods at the price that is centrally regulated. and these are, of course, then the issues that become a problem if the state economy is growing, because you have a lack of innovation, a lack of productivity growth, and this is holding them back, of course. growth on aggregate. but there are different ways. you can make state-owned companies more efficient or you can privatize parts of the economy where it's not intuitive why the state should be involved in the production and not just rather doing what the main job of the state is, to regulate the market and provide equal
conditions for firms so that they can compete best. >> turning to the budget, one also from abroad has the impression that there has been a turn toward heavier military expenditures, certainly more aggressive stance than one that's perceived here. is that important in terms of the budget or is it more show than reality in terms of spending? if it's important in terms of a reallocation of spending, does that limit their opportunities for fiscal effective fiscal adjustment in the regard we have
been discussing in the next few years? >> well, i mean, if you look at the russian budget, you really have three key big budget categories, and one is social policy expenditure, social benefits. one is national defense and security. and the third is spending on the national economy, which is in large part subsidies to the economy. this is not such an unusual structure of the budget, but of course, if your revenue situation dramatically changes, the question is can you just cut one or two of these budget items? and that has implications, if i decide to just cut social policy spending, it might mean i need to cut pensions or change my
pension system. i need to reduce what i promised to my citizens in a social contract for free health care, free education. so these are not trivial decisions that have to be taken. so that's why it is a really strategic exercise for government to think through what are my priorities for spending going forward, where can i change what is now the status quo, and what would be the impact of that. and i think at the moment, there is definitely a lot of internal debate in the government of what should be the priorities. is it possible to still run, for instance, this military renewal program that was started already
a few years ago? which is a costly program. and what would be then the price that would need to be paid by cutting one of the other two expenditure items for instance if we were then to cut -- if russia would then cut, for instance, subsidies to the economy, would this mean that some of the state-owned companies have to be more cost efficient and lay off some people? then we have high unemployment, which we don't have yet. so this is not an easy discussion when you look at these three key budget items. and what is most important, though, in our view, is every country does their own decisions on the budget. and this is resonated or based on the electorate and what
empowerment authorities have from its electorate. but in the end, it is about communicating clearly to its citizens what are my policy choices going forward. and this is about the policy on certainty to really help firms you can see all of this program online at c-span.org. we're going to take you to louisville, kentucky. hillary clinton on stage speaking to supporters just getting underway live here on c-span 3. >> you know, these elections are always important. that's how we govern ourselves. i believe that. but boy, do i think this presidential election has about the highest stakes that we have seen in a really long time. you could not imagine a more different vision for our country than the one between our side of
democrats for progress and fairness and opportunity than the presumptive nominee on the republican side. that's why it's important we have a big vote next tuesday because we have to get ready to go all the way to november to win the general election. the way i see this, we've got to break down all the barriers that stand in the way of any american getting ahead and staying ahead. and i've been talking about this now for a year as i have chris crossed the country. talking to thousands of people because, yes, we have to knock down the economic barriers. but there are other barriers that prevent people from fulfill ing their own god-given
potential. and i want you with me to be absolutely on the front lines of making sure that the american dream is within reach of every single person in this country. . number one, we have to have more good jobs with rising incomes. it's an historical fact. the economy does better when we have a democrat in the white house. i know our republican friends hate it when i say that, but all you have to do is look at the record of the last two democratic presidents to get all the evidence you need. i know it was a long time ago, but when my husband was president we ended up with 23 million new jobs and incomes that rose for everybody.
e we don't incomes just to rise for some, we want them to rise for everybody. when bill was president, that is what happened. more people lifted out of poverty. median family income going up 17%. median african-american family income going up 33%. everybody did better. that's the way it's supposed to be in america. that's how i was raised. you do your part, work hard and get ahead. your kids will have a better life than you did. that's what i want people to believe and make sure happens. so you might ask yourself, okay, if that's what happened in the 90s, why did it fall apart. there's a kind of easy answer for that.
we had a republican president. and i'll tell you this is serious because i think we ought to balance the budget, we had new jobs, rising incomes and now we can look back and see that we haven't had a raise for most americans in about 16 years. there was a recent survey of republicans and democrats saying so when was the best year you can remember and they said 2000. now why was that? because we were on the right track. but the republicans came back with their failed economic positions. trickle down economics. then they took their eyes off
the financial markets and the mortgage markets and we know what happened. the worst financial crisis since the great depression. you can already see it. we can't let that happen. we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when president obama was elected. z they say this was the slowest recovery in history. my friends, that takes a lot of
nerve. we would not have needed a recovery if the republicans hadn't driven us off the cliff in the first place. and so here's what i want to do. i have a program to create more good jobs with rising incomes, rebuild the middle class, rooer going to invest in more infrastructure. our roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our ports, our airports. i think it's a about time a bridge you have right here should be fixed. these are good jobs. these pay good money. but they also make us more competitive. why should we allow all the investment that our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents made go to waste? it makes no sense whatsoever. let's put americans to work. these are jobs you cannot export. they have to be done right here in kentucky.
they are going to bring back advanced manufacturing. a lot of people say we can't do that. i don't buy it. i believe we can make it in america again. we have to have a plan. we have to invest in tax incentives for companies that will actually produce manufacturing jobs here. instead of shipping those jobs overseas. but there's a lot of things we have to invent and build. we should do it here in america. my husband was at moore head state and he can't stop talking about it because he was meeting with students doing research building tiny satellites for nasa right there at moore head state. the young people will invent the future and create the jobs that
are there. you know how we're going to combat climate change? not by denying it. i love it when the republicans ask about climate change and say i'm not a scientist. you can go to the university of louisville, kentucky, there are a lot of scientists who will explain it to you. it's going to be i think either germany, china or us. i want it to be us. i have this idea that our future
can be even brighter than our past. the best years of america can be ahead of us if we start acting like americans again. roll up our sleeves and get to work. we're going to do more for small business because that's where jobs come from. my dad was a small businessman and i love small businesses because you never know what could be made from a small business. i want to do more to help you get ahead. i believe we should raise the federal minimum wage. now i got to tell you it really is -- it's really painful when you look at people who are working hard full-time and they are still in poverty.
a lot of them single parents supporting their children. i want to raise the federal minimum wage. if states want to go above it, that's their business but we have to get the floor up so people have a chance to make it in america. and i'll tell you it is way past time to guarantee actual pay for women's work. this is not just a woman's issue. if you have a mother, a wife, a sister who is working, if they are being shortchanged you're being shortchanged. it's not only the family income being shortchanged.
the woman who is getting less than what her pay should be is getting shortchanged in retirement, getting shortchanged in social security, it's not just a one day, one week, one pay period, one year phenomenon. and i don't know about you, but i can tell you -- >> hillary! hillary! hillary! i can tell you as a woman who has shopped most of her life, i have never gotten a discount when i got to the cashier. i have never had anybody say to me, well, you're a woman so you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar.
that hasn't happened yet. but we need to be fair. people who work hard need to be rewarded. that's how we built this country. we believe in hard work. we believe in opportunity. i started out in lexington today. and i was talking to some young parents, moms and dads. the stresses on young families today seem to be much greater in lots of ways because between the fact that you're not getting raises like people used to expect and you're not getting maybe equal pay for your work and child care can cost as much
as send iing a child to the university and all kinds of challenges we're really making it hard. it's time to bring family policy to to the 21st century. it's not the way it used to be. we have to support these young parents. i have been doing this work my entire adult life. first job i had had out of law school was with the children's defense fund, and i know how important it is that we give people hope. that we give people a real sense that we're all in this together. and that they don't feel like the game is rigged against them and the deck is stacked. so i'm going to keep advocating for good jobs and rising incomes
and good work/family balance policies that can help people feel like they are being fair to their family while they do their work in their workplace. every time i advocate for this, the republicans say there she goes playing the woman's card. i always say you know what, if talking about equal pay and women's health and paid family leave is playing the woman's card, then deal me in. you're a great, great crowd today. you know what else? we have to do more on education. we have to start in the beginning and we have to go all
the way through. so i do think we need more early childhood education so every child is prepared and we need to work with our teachers, we need to be supporting our teachers. not scapegoating our teachers. giving them what they need to do their job. and then i have a plan for debt free college if you go to a public college. and the reason we can afford to do this is because we can invest in the education of young people from middle class working, poor families. not the wealthy. i don't believe in free college for the wealthy. i don't support that. my opponent bernie sanders does. we just have a difference. but he also requires that a third of the cost for free
college be paid by the states. now i don't know about you, but it doesn't seem like your new governor is friendly to higher education. so my plan avoids that. we funded directly. the other thing we're going to do is pay down student debt by letting you refinance your debt like a mortgage or a car payment. i'm excited about this because there's so much student debt and it's holding people back and it's holding them down. $1.2 trillion in student debt. let's get the interest rates down. let's give people a chance to pay it back as a percentage of their income. let's put a date certain when it ends and let's stop the federal government from making money off of lending money to students and their families.
now i also will tell you i will defend the affordable care act. i am saddened by what i hear may come out of the governor's office here in kentucky. i'm especially saddened because i think you all know this. but kentucky under the governor was widely praised for running the best affordable care transition in the whole country. your state exchange called connect, better than any state, bigger, richer, you guys did it right. it's working. you have had the biggest, the second biggest drop in the uninsured in the country.
nearly 9% it's down to. and i was visiting the family health centers here in louisville and i was talking to doctors and nurse practitioners and patients and i have to tell you it just brought tears to my eyes. people who are getting health care for the first time in ye s years. people who are dealing with problems that they just had to ignore. people who feel healthier, more productive like they can put in a good day's work because they now have the treatments that they deserve and need to have. and it is so distressing to me when anybody in public life, anybody u in public life who has all the health care he or she needs wants to take it away from
working poor people, small business people and others who don't have the health care they need. i don't understand it. i really do believe we're all in this together. we are stronger together. and how does it help me or help our economy if you have hundreds of thousands of people in this state who can't afford the health care i need. it doesn't seem like a productive outcome. i'm hoping your governor will come out of with plan that doesn't strip away the insurance that they now have. i sure hope that's the case. because that's the kind of country we should be striving to be. where we do take care of each other. and there are two issues.
i want to get the cost of prescription drugs down. i want to do more on mental health and addiction. both of those issues, we're just not doing enough. there's still too much stigma about mental health. if you have diabetes, you tell your family or friends you have been diagnosed with diabetes. you have depression, you're not sure you want anybody to know and may not get the help you need because you're embarrassed. it's time to end the stigma. we're learning so much about the body, about our genomes, about how we actually work. we are all one body and whether it's mental health or physical health, it's all who we are. we need to do more to help people who are suffering.
kentucky is facing a big open yoed crisis. and we have to do more because we're losing thousands of people a year to overdoses. i was very pleased at the family health center to learn they are starting an opium treatment but we need that everywhere because people need help and they need to be saved from overdoses. a lot of them don't know they are actually overdosing. my husband and i have lost the children of dear friends of ours, adult children, who had no intention to die, but they took a pill after they had a beer or two and they never woke up. this is the single most heartbreaking story i hear as i travel across america. and as your president, if i'm so fortunate enough to be, we're
going to do everything we can to save lives, divert people from the criminal justice system, give them treatment, help them s into recovery and get on a better track. we're also going to reform the criminal justice system and end the era of mass incarceration with more diversion programs and more second chance programs. i think it's one of our biggest challenges and i want us to lead the way at the local and state level, supported by the federal government. there's a lot of great work for us to do in our country right now. and i think everybody running for president should have to meet the test of whether or not they are telling you about how they are going to improve the lives of americans. what are the positive results
that we are seeking. i also think they should level with you about where they stand on all of the hot button issues, the issues about rights, because there's a big difference between us. i will defend a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. and i will defend marriage equality. and i will defend voting rights. and i will work to end citizens united and rid our political system of unaccountable money. i talked a lot about that in this campaign. i take it personally. that citizens united case was
another right wing attack on me. the right wing never gives up attacking me. have you noticed that? honest to goodness, i think they are really going to throw everything including the kitchen sink this time. i have a little message for them. they have done it for 25 years and i'm still standing. it's also really important when you go to vote on tuesday to remember you're not voting not just for a president but a commander-in-chief. and the highest obligation of a president is to protect america. i take that as a solemn
obligation and it's why i have been so concerned about the reckless talk coming from donald trump. i have to tell you it's a long list now that he just sort of throws things out. people say maybe he doesn't really mean it. when you are running for and serving as president, you'd better mean what you say. so when he casually says he doesn't care if more countries e get nuclear weapon, i shudder. the last thing we need are more countries with nuclear weapons. i'm trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. that's why i negotiated a treaty with russia to do just that. we don't need more countries, we need fewer countries with nuclear weapons. when he says he wants to withdraw from nato, the most successful military alliance in
history, i say, what are we going to substitute for it? how are we going to work with our friends and allies against all new threats we face? and when he says, you know, let the iranians or the russians go after isis. hello, the last thing e we need is iran taking over syria, take ing over lebanon and threatening israel and europe and everybody else. so i got to tell you, i am if i'm u so fortunate enough to be the nominee, i am looking forward to debating donald trump come the fall. finally, we have to unify america. a house divided against itself cannot stand. we can't be scapegoating and
finger pointing and blaming and demeaning and degrating and insulting. our fellow americans, do we have disagreements, yeah, that's healthy. there are lots of different ways to achieve our goals. we set our goals and then we have a good back and forth about how we achieve them. you don't do that by denigrating people. demeaning people, that is not what we are. and it's time that we said enough. we're willing to have good political debates. enough with the hate rhetoric and the insults and let's look for ways to work together. let's recognize what made our country great. i think we are great. but i think we can be greater if we do what we must do and so many of the targets that trump
aims at and other republicans aims at are part of how we became great. this effort by republicans to undermine workers' rights and union rights is undermining the middle class, undermining the core of who we are and how our economy operates and how we get stronger and more prosperous. attacking immigrants, we are a nation of immigrants. attacking muslims, muslims have to be on the front lines of protecting us against terrorists. they have to tell us what they hear and what they see. that's what we learned in new york after 9/11. i have lived this. and one of the ways we picked up information was by making sure that american muslims understood they were welcome to pick up the phone and to call the police and to report what they saw and what they heard. it helped to keep us safe.
and it will again. that's why we can't be dividing ourselves. we need to be united against terrorism. and demeaning and denigrating people with disabilities, that's not who we are. insulting women, i don't care what he says about me, but i do resent what he says about other people. other successful women, women who have worked hard, women who have done their part, we are, after all, 51% of the country. i have never seen us have such a divisive campaign. i'm going to do my best to keep talking about what the issues are, what i see as our future, the kind of positive vision that
i have for america. i'm going to build on the good work that has gone before. i'm going to do everything i can can to bring people together. i will go anywhere, any time, meet with anyone to find common ground, absolutely. that's what i did as first lady. that's what i did as a senator. that's what i did as secretary of state. i am all about getting results for america. the way i look at it is our people are going to be better off when i end than when i started. are more kids going to have better education and better health care. are we going to be coming together as a nation instead o of falling apart. i think that is our big challenge in the 21st century. because i will tell you there is no other country, none, i went to 112 countries as your secretary of state for you.
there is no other country that holds a candle to us. when we are good, nobody is better. and i want us to roll up our sleeves and get to work. and i feel especially strongly about that because i have a granddaughter now. and those of you who have grandchildren, you know you are just obsessed with them. it is really kind of weird. you just sit there and stare at 'em. you do it because you're so overwhelmed by love and you see your child, your son or your daughter who is now a parent. but it's also because you're thinking about the future. and you're saying to yourself, i don't want anything ever to go wrong for this precious child. i don't want her ever to face hard time, although they come in
everyone's life. but you see it's not enough that my grandchild has opportunities. i want every child and every grandchild here in this city, this state, i want every child to have the same opportunity to grow up and fulfill his or her god given potential. that is what i will work on every single day in this campaign and in the white house. please come out and vote on tuesday. thank you, louisville! ♪
we want to let you know our coverage continues later tonight at 10:00 eastern. bernie sanders speaking to supporters in salem, oregon, ahead of their primary next week. primaries going on tonight, today in west virginia. also republicans in nebraska look for results over on c span as well. madame secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states.
next a conversation on security challenges and politics in the middle east. topics include the uprising, the rise of nonstate actors and come the batting isis. it's hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. >> first, before we start, a security announcement. we have never had a problem before. in the event there's a problem, we have exits on the side and in the back of the room. we can go lots of places, so don't worry, follow my direction. i'm delighted to welcome lisa anderson to present the third in our series of three talks on the middle east at an inflection point. this is an activity supported by the general funds of the middle east program and seemed as we were looking forward to a new administration five years after the beginning of the uprising, it would be useful to take stock
of where we are. in my mind, there could be no better guide than our speaker today. i have known lisa for 25 years and she's always impressed me. she just left from a five-year tenure of the university in cairo, which she served as provost for two years. she was the dean of the columbian school of public affairs, the former head of the institute at columbia. the professor of international relations. lisa has not only had a distinguished career in administration, but as a political scientist, i think she has really had a remarkable record analyzing and describing in real terms what is happening and why things are happening in
the middle east in incredibly tumultuous five years in egypt working with the various governments and working with students in the midst of this all. so as we think about the middle east at an inflection point, i can think of no better guide for the perplexed than lisa anderson. thank you. [ applause ] it is a delight to be here. honored to be in the company of the other speakers in this series. particularly the ambassador, who as you may know is a trustee. i have lots of things that i can talk about as they were doing my farewell parties at auc. . they remark that probably would
not happen again that a president of auc served under four different presidents of the republic. i think that's probably true. but what i want to do is a much larger kind of big picture reflection on where the middle east is today and how we really need to be thinking, i think, in somewhat new ways about it's a very complicated time in the region. the title of this series is at an inflection point speaks to an
interesting moment, but it also suggests that e we should be thinking it's not a single thing that's changing. whole sets of things are changing in history. so let me start with a few general observations about what i describe as the historical arks in which the region finds itself. and signal a little bit of how they reflected in the current fortunes of particular countries and koconflicts. i would argue that really there are three historical revolutions of different scales that are converging in the events that began as the arab spring five or so years ago. which is part of the reason both the timing and fury were unexpected. there were plenty of jeremiahs around, but there really wasn't anyone who anticipated quite the drama that would follow the
departure from tunisia in the region. what first caught everyone's eye, and i think probably as what we understood the best was what might be called straight forward uprisings. this was the original call for the oust in tunisia. and in themselves, these changes, these developments were not dynamically dissimilar from comparable revolts and political revolutions in other times and places. so we expected the process to look more or less like the fall of the regimes in louisiana tin america or the collapse of communism in eastern europe. we were ready to look for various actors where their divisions in the regime. to negotiate with reformists. all that kind of thing was what we thought was pretty familiar. and we added a few notes about
the neighborhood effect and about great power and we looked at notice that the united states was involved in egypt and the saudis in bahrain and so forth. it all seemed pretty much like garden variety regime change. something that the political scientists and policymakers of this country were familiar. even the mess in libya was predictable and predicted. but somehow it went well beyond that. and this is the second of my three arks of revolution. i would argue the global politics itself is inflecting. and that was to raise the stakes and add an element of significant uncertainty to the dynamics within countries in the region. the apparent end of history shs the end of the cold war and more importantly the revolution in information and communications technologies about which we talk all the time have brought largely unanticipated changes to the character and context of politics everywhere including in
this country. in the absence of the great power menace, the dynamic of the cold war that seemed to keep people ral lid around their flags, and with the newfound access and expertise particularly of young people, the world is saying a surge of global populism, a growing skepticism about authority of all kinds. enthusiasm for creative u destruction. not unlike the political unhooefls that attended the industrial revolution of the 19th century. we were in a historical revolution of important magnitude? it was called millions of individuals mobilized in flash mobs of protest in madrid and istanbul from that which you will recall all of that was part of this dynamic to the popularity of outsiders as
presidential candidates even in the united states. anti-establishment politics is endemic. so you saw the intersection of very local complaints about very local governments and regimes with dynamics that were global dynamics of how protests happens and what kinds of mondalities there are to protest. so some of this, the global level, we foresaw although probably not how quite terrifying it would be. policymakers and analysts did anticipate there were going to be major shifts in how the political economy would take shape. but not exactly how that would happen. i want to remind you of a passage that i often use as an example of how clever we all are, at least some of us. and yet how puzzling the
implications of o what our insights may be. ten years ago the president of the council on former relations wrote, and i quote, nation states will not disappear, but will share power"nation states disappear but share power with a larger number of powerful nonsovereign actors than ever before including corporations, ngos, terrorist groups, drug cartels, regional and global institutions, banks and private equity funds." "sovereignty" he went on "will fall victim to the greenhouse gases, goods, viruses e-mails and weapons within an across borders. the world 35 years from now will be semisovereign. it reflect the need to adapt legal and political principles in a world to which the serious challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather from what states do to each other." ten years in, that sounds pretty
right, actually, at least as you think about the middle east. and yet we hadn't in that description really thought very much about how exactly that would transpire in any particular place and i think we see much of that playing out in the region. but even if we half expected this revolution at the global scale and even if we half understood the revolution at the domestic scale, the uprisings against regimes, we're still working out its implication and for our purposes in the middle east, the dual revolutions of local regime change and global transformation converge in what i describe as a third revolution between these scales which is regional. between the local and the global, a regional revolution or perhaps, too, is taking place before our vary eyeery eyes. we're witnessing both, this
people have written about, but i think to put them together is important. the beginning of the end of the imperial era and the particular state system it left in the region. and an internal regional revolt, if you will, perhaps better a transfer of power whether this turns out to be a revolt in any seismic way in the region i think remains to be seen, but a transfer of power from the region's fading nationalist establishment and the governments of those countries, to a sort of gulf against egypt, kings against generals with all of the political and cultural implications that that entails. so these regional revolution are larger than a change in regimes, smaller in the change of the global means and mode of
production, but they shape how these other revolutions are reflected in the region, itself, and are, of course, shaped by them in turn. no wonder it seems so complicated. i think it's fair to say we now live in an era of quantum politics. uncertainty is not a transitory condition. it is a principle. and i think that will be true forever now. the moment where we really thought we could understand with certainty the character of politics, particularly in the middle east, but globally, is probably over. so the interplay of all these revolutions creates an enormous amount of complexity and confusion for us. so what i simply want to do is tick off a few issues i think are necessary to construct a description of the region, anticipate what the trajectory of some of these different levels of revolution might be. i think, in fact, there are some patterns of at least winners and losers or shifts in the way
politics happens that we can tease out of this very complicated landscape. in the first place, keep in mind that the state we have tribed for now, 10 or 20 years, is in eclipse is itself a relatively new feature of human society and there are a lot of alternatives to the state and there historically have been. other sorts of communities, families, tribes, churches, religious brotherhoods, business networks, secret societies, all sorts of things, have served for millenia as vehicles for regulating social interaction, organizing production, in exchange ensuring security and in many parts of the middle east where formal expressions of statehood, territorial boundaries, standing armies, international sovereignty are eroding as haas anticipated, these kind of communities are reviving and while they may be partly reinventions of tradition, they are quite
robust. i'll be returning to them over the course of time. the state and the way the state wases created in the middle east and north africa in itself contributed to the character of these kinds of non-state actors. there were two congenital defects, if you will, in the states as they were established particularly after the first world war. they have an ambiguous sometimes hostile, sometimes unhealthy co- co-dedependent with relations on nonstate communities. i'll e lolaborate on that. they have responsibilities they could never fulfill on their own resources. let me talk a little bit about that because i think it's important to recognize the -- the way the states and non-state identities and actors have been intertwined since the very beginning of the modern state era in the middle east and north africa about 100 years ago.
and i'll start you off by reminding you of a little bit of the language of the terms of the covenant of the league of nations which established the mandates in former atman territories. there are, quote, certain communities, their term, that belong to the former ottaman empire, their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the mandates. and in article 22, the league promised there should be applied the principle that the wellbeing and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization. okay. so the language suggests that communities will be recognized as nations, presumably to be accorded corresponding states, when actually, of course, what really mattered in the creation of these entities was imperial convenience and political patronage. in other words, to the mareni
marenites, to the state rulers, to the junior partner in the first world war italy, and libya, and so forth and so on. these were not communities designed to be nations and accorded states. so from the very beginning of european tutelage, state entities were entangled with family, patronage. that's been true. everyone in this room is undoubtedly aware of that. except in the established states most of which predate this, iran, egypt, turkey. turkey, by the way, got 80% of the bureaucrats of the ottoman imperial administration. hence its state was instantaneously very strong, well equipped, well trained in the 1920s and most of the former ottoman provinces in the arab world were diluted of their
bureaucratic capacity. iran, turkey, egypt, tunisia, to some extent, had formal institutions of bureaucratic states. but apart from them, those institutions, though always a bit of a fig leaf in fiction, or as the u.s. ambassador said of the government of independent libya in 1951, it was a last resort and expedient and an experiment. it was not obviously something that he had a lot of confidence in succeeding. the alienation from and hostility to the modern states of the middle east was o kaxly expressed against governments and their supporters usually when sectarianism was politicizpoliticize ed but not that often or certainly not as often as is the case today but what happened is it was routinely exhibited and what looks like from the bureaucratic states' perspective
like corruption. reliance on friends, ethnic, religious ties, amomoney change criminal networks to obtain the necessities of daily life. these, of course, these networks ate away at efforts to create the formal institutions of a modern state. so you had the scaffolding of a modern state, but most of the ways that scaffolding was deployed was for the purposes of other kinsds of networks and identities. the second congenital defect was the proposition that the wellbeing and development of peoples form a sacred trust of civilization. that including what i just called the necessities of modern life, as an obligation on the part of these states, may not seem like a bad thing. but the introduction of the standards of a modern welfare state responsible for wellbeing and development in countries which had not developed the economic base extractive capacity or fiscal apparatus to pay for it was to me that most
of them remained at the mercy of external patrons, hardly the hallmark of robust sovereignty. so both from the inside and the outside, these states were as much the appearance as reality. debilitated from the start, expected to meet domestic policy standards that were barely possible even in the most economically developed and well administered states while bereft of all but the most minimal economic assets and elementary institutions and it was unclear what constituents they were supposed to serve. so, they weren't very robust to begin with as you can obviously tell and they over the course of time they failed to meet the standards they set for themselves. they never thrived. never. and they slowly and in the beginning imperceptively began to fail. we now talk a lot about failed states, but failed states don't usually fail instantaneously. they fail over time. what you saw was