tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN May 27, 2016 3:00pm-5:01pm EDT
libya can't afford to get divided up by people with different interests fighting with one another. that's part of what leads to the chaos. if you have one regional state supporting one player and a different regional state supporting another player, that's not going to work well. i think everybody understands that. egypt, the united arab emirates, qatar, saudi arabia, sudan, chad, niger, morocco, i hope i've not missed any of the north african players -- jordan -- i did miss one -- as well as the united kingdom, france, the european union, all signed on to this communique which is a full-throated endorsement to the government of national accord. it's like water hydraulics. i don't know if there are other
kinds. you can't predict where an individual particle will go. if you dig a trench, most of the water will go down that trench. if you go down a channel and after you dig the channel, you then coat the channel and start putting in filters and a variety of things to get the water looking good and useful for more purposes. what we're doing is trying to create a channel for national unity and reconciliation. and for building the institutions libya needs for building enough stability so the economy can come back, distribute the wealth fairly, equitably to bring people in, and take advantage of libya's natural resources to rebuild the country.
that's what we're trying to do. i think we've made a lot of progress. there are still a lot of problems. the more progress we make, the more libya will be able to take on daesh as the vast, vast, vast majority of libyans want to do. and push it -- reduce it and push it out. it's happening already. you see fighting against them from misrata, in benghazi. it's not like nothing is happening to push them back. they have less territory today than they did six months or a year ago and they'll have less territory again. this is an iraqi/syria phenomenon that's being transplanted into syria welcomed in by some extremist elements. some of whom then said we don't want them. they didn't like being told what to do and kicked them out.
so the libyans are difficult. she's very sensible and dynamic and easy to work with. we love working with her. but libyans can be quite fractious. so carving that channel in a way that they're going to say this is good is what we're trying to do even if we can't predict where individual droplets are going to go. if -- and even though it's going to take time which it is and it will. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to be willing to take some questions from the audience. oh, yes. i'll be willing to take some questions from the audience. raise your hands. i've already seen a few of you with your hands up. i suspect there will be more questioners than i'm able to get to. when i call on somebody would you, number one, introduce yourself as to your name and affiliation. number two, ask a question, don't make a statement. keep it short.
end with a question mark. all right, let me start in the middle there, jason. and wait until you get the microphone, please. >> always a pleasure to hear such an all-star panel but particularly to take instructions from a good friend ambassador mack. i am jason pack. i agree with the broad outlines of the panel. isis is no doubt a symptom of the maladies of libya's implosion post-2011 and not the cause. and, of course, as charles started off saying and fred commented, without a bona fide anti-isis coalition it will be impossible to make real or sustainable gains in cert. those actors who support other
factions such as the east or others who don't want to be a part of this anti-isis coalition, it's all well and good to sign communiques. what can be done to incentivize concretely? i think sanctions and pressure on other areas are crucial, so what are concrete proposals? i ask the panel, that can make people fall into line both regional directors? >> jonathan, let me ask you to start by addressing that and then i'll ask other members of the panel to jump in if they have particular comments. >> well, to start with sanctions, sanctions, of course, are intended to respond to global and national security threats of various kinds and have to be legally justified. the speaker of the parliament of the government in libya we recognized prior to the gna.
after he undertook a series of activities to prevent people from voting, which included substantial threats of violence and intimidation when a majority of ready to support the national accord not just the majority but a super majority, over 100 out of 150 roughly participating members who were ready to go and he prevented it from happening. we sanctioned him. we sanctioned khalifa who threatened essentially to imprison or inflict violence on anyone who participated in the government national accord's entry into tripoli. after the sanctions, he wound up leaving town. he lost protection, he lost financial resources.
the central banked put all of its authority and ceased responding to requests from either of the legacy governments. so that was a very profound economic shift which i'm sure had its impact. there was an effort to sell oil elicitly and it was supported by the house of representatives but not responding to the government's national accord. we got a designation by the u.n. to declare the oil seizable. they called the ship's captain up and told them to turn the ship around. the ship's captain cooperated, the oil was unloaded and was no longer susceptible to diversion. we were very grateful to the indian government to help on something well outside the area of south asia. the full five fully cooperated with one another.
participated in the vienna communique. very important. to have all five onboard and it to have all five feel they're pulling together. we worked very, very hard to try and consult with russia and china as we go along. complaints about how all of this came to be. it's worth noting they have them and that alignment there is tremendously important, too. after that, what happened next? did they say they were going to continue to move oil out because they had every right to? they sure did. and then a possibility the participants might get sanctioned as well, not just the oil but the individuals. i don't know whether that had an
impact on them or not. i do know there was a deal cut in the last 48 hours, between the eastern and western knock. if they agree to the authority, the national accord says they're a part of it, then they are. a mixture of sanctions and we don't want to sanction anybody. if they're not coming together you have to carve that channel. you have to get people into the right territory and then to back off whenever you can. >> let's get a microphone to the gentlemen on the right. >> from johns hopkins. jonathan, you just answered part of my question which is to what
degree does the gna control things at present. the central bank, to what degree on unifying the parliaments. where are we in this process? to what degree is there a connection between the gna and the local government that still exists? >> should i just go? >> yes. >> it's a work in progress, of course. the central bank that controls all of the foreign exchange, all of it, has been based in tripoli, exists under at this point the authority of the gna and undertakes no activities that aren't in alignment with
the policies and approach of the gna. the central banks have some independence but it's still aligned. the role of the one to the east is still hard to assess. i was very disturbed when i read in "the wall street journal" they were intending to hire a safe cracker to break into a safe in benghazi and take out gadhafi gold coins with his image on them and melt them. i thought that was disturbing. only criminals broke into central bank safes and that only happened in movies. here it was being discussed by somebody who purports to be a central bank governor. very disturbing. reports of large amounts of currency being printed, to be imported into libya. i don't know whether those are true or not. very disturbing. where we support and back the gna and most of the money is
tied up still anyway which is a good thing in light of libya's instability. it's a work in progress. it's a channel being carved, as it were. the government's ability to directly control things is quite limited but most towns and cities in the united states don't take their direction from vice president biden. very few of us take guidance from the top officers of our country. the system kind of works. who is exercising authority and jurisdiction and where. as i said once and will say it twice and try not to repeat it a third or fourth time, it's a work in progress and very hard to say. if people agree to accept the
authority, that authority is accepted. the process is as much a state of mind as anything else. what has to happen over the next few weeks is the government of the national court works with the central bank to secure liquidity to get currency on the ground and purchasing power through things like letters of credit to get goods imported so there's enough stuff through ramadan so people feel, yeah, our needs are being taken care of properly. this is what i believe wafa bugaighis was referring to before. that's what they have to do and they're working on it. i hear there will be real progress over the next couple of weeks and other people are tearing their hair out. are they focused on it, yes? is it as critical as wafa bugaighis says? it's essential. >> it's been a great discussion by a couple of our speakers about sanctions which i appreciate.
i'm going to ask to get one more question out at least from the gentleman there. go ahead. >> thank you for the presentation. i'm eric goldstein from human rights watch. of course isis is awful but since 2011 various militia have probably been responsible for far more abuses. if there is -- those who are talking about a selective listing of the arms embargo assure us that there will be vetting, i'd like to hear from any member of the panel who can explain how the vetting will be credible, who's going to do it, who has the intelligence to ensure that the arms don't go into the hands -- into the wrong hands, thank you. >> well, wafa bugaighis was involved in civil society before and i think she's in a great position to answer this question. >> civil society -- i will answer it maybe with my capacity
also, as i said, under secretary for foreign affairs before this post. this is what i mentioned earlier. we should not rush and we have to be cautious and i reiterated that. the idea of lifting the arms embargo and importing arms right now, we need to assess what we have. we need to make sure that -- we have to make sure it's not going to fall in other hands and i think i heard this mentioned, we should not rush into such an issue, we need to organize and know who is going to take what, where is it going to go and previously we had a huge amount
of arms, a lot of smuggling, organized crime, selling arms in this country. besides isis we have huge organized crime network in the country and a huge amount of arms going in and out so we need to be cautious definitely. i think this is what's going to happen. let me take one more question from the lady in the middle and then i'm going to ask all four members of the panel to leave us with a final thought in one or two sentences. >> i'm with rand. can you hear me now?
my question is about coordination among international actors, sort of carrying on from what jason said about communique is nice but beyond that there needs to be some sort of concrete measures. from what it seems each actor or each country has its own plan in space. what is the degree among those actors you see and are they communicating in terms of intelligence sharing, do they have individual relationships that are different with different militias on the ground and then from there do you trust the gna is actually a body that will provide the kind of factual
information you're looking for in terms of which militias to trust and work with? >> let me start with fred in answering that question. >> i'll take the last part of that. factual information, this is the real problem, a lot are auditioning, raising their hands, i'll fight isis. they figured out it's a great way to get support and the sort of question about, well, what does that really mean? is there a criteria for signing up, and that goes to the human rights vetting which is tremendously problematic. when they tried to train, the record keeping system in libya was quite sparse. you didn't know who was -- it's
worrisome. some of the actors that are pushing back against the islamic state right now are running their own prisons. i went into one in tripoli where guys are being thrown in there, who's isis? who is not? how do you know he's isis? the question of due process is really, really an issue. the issue of special forces, i don't know. i've seen the reports about what the french did in benghazi and each actor has its own impulse and its own agenda and i think it can be detrimental if it's not orchestrated. it creates a certain ripple effect that could be damaging. this has to be on the same sheet and we have to proceed with caution and that would be my closing point, let's be careful
before we rush in. this is a society probably more resilient than we think. people i talked to, they want their lifestyle issues addressed, they want their economy. that has to be the first step. >> that's a good way for you to end. first, do no harm. >> charles, how about you? >> two things i want to mention. it's been said already that isis is not necessarily a libyan phenomenon. i think that's absolutely right. when i talk about syria, don't forget about the other one which is al qaeda, and i think sharia has had a foothold for much longer than isis has. central leadership both in the region and further afield. i think last year there was a conference held between basically every single al qaeda-linked group in north
africa and as far south as mali in benghazi and that was coordinated by ansar al sharia. i will say don't forget about the other jihadi enemy i would say has much more of a historical foothold in parts of libya. on train and equip, if i was someone to say there is a parallel, that is best known as the centcom one which spectacularly failed. that failed because there was a refusal to understand and acknowledge the reality of local dynamics, of what people's priorities were. so if i was to draw a parallel to libya, i would say don't make any train and equip mission only about isis. the whole broader long-term context of libya has to be taken into account. secondly by extension. the train and equip mission that has worked in syria or i would
argue has worked by the central intelligence agency and coordinated with regional governments, that took 18 months to find the first genuinely reliable vetted forces. that still exists to this day. over 50 armed groups have received that vetting, training, equipping process since 2012, 2013. and two out of 53 on my count don't exist anymore. it's a remarkable success rate, but it does go to show you how long it takes to conduct a process like this and how important that process was in succeeding and actually acknowledging the local dynamics. that was the primary reason for its success. so, again, to sort of reiterate, i think what i said and what others have said, it takes time. don't rush a process like this. if you rush it, it will fail. >> wafa, would you like to just leave us with a couple of final thoughts?
>> yeah, just -- we recognize that the process of unifying the whole of libya and securing it is going to be a long process and the situation will probably still get worse before it gets better, but my message here is for the international community, for the u.s. government, we've got to shoot for the high diplomatic and political efforts so far and for the gentleman in particular who's been doing a lot of traveling and a lot of hard work and we communicate sometimes a lot of the day in the hour, but my message is for them to maintain the momentum and help in coordinating efforts for reconciliation. we need more and more and more reconciliation. we need to, you know, invent proposals and initiatives and that will be the key for unifying libya and for reaching peace.
thank you. >> thank you. jonathan. >> thank you. i know it will be much better for me to wait until president clinton or president trump takes over and leave them with the libyan problem and divest myself of it. that would definitely be better for my physical and psychological well-being. there's no doubt about it. i'm not sure it would be better for libya to wait, including on the issues we talked about. don't do things until you know what the results are going to be. be very, very, very afraid. not just very, very careful. sure. i love omelets. i eat omelets. i hate breaking eggs. i won't let you break eggs. i don't like egg beaters. it's not a very satisfactory set of formulations.
daesh is killing people today. it will kill a lot more people before it's done. it will kill a lot more than that and destroy a lot more than that if you let them be. libyans will fight back against them. they have been asking for it, east and west and south, different types of help. should the united states and other members of the international community, a phrase i hate, respond to them positively or ignore them and say, no, we'll wait for president clinton or president clump -- trump. i said clump, that was not a freudian slip, it was just a mispronunciation. we're faced with the policy choices that we're faced with. don't under estimate, this is my last point, the power of them. they sent norms. you can measure conduct against norms and build activities against norms that have been set. underestimating the power of communique i think is a mistake,
particularly if people are determined to use it. thank you. >> let me -- let me just say one thing as the moderator and somebody who's been involved in libya since i went there as a young diplomat in 1969. the whole history of u.s./libyan relations is one of some very rather brief periods of very intense involvement, often violent. our war against tripoli in the beginning of the 19th century, our bombing of tripoli and benghazi in 1986 and -- but also some brief periods of involvement have been libya becoming an independent country after the second world war when other people would have just
turned them back to the italians and also the war of american oil companies in helping libya become prosperous after it had been one of the poorest countries in the world. but basically if you look at the whole history it's been long, long periods of neglect, and i hope we are turning that around now and that we will be more closely involved in helping the libyans have the kind of future that they deserve. please join me in thanking our four panelists. [ applause ] republican presidential candidate, donald trump, is campaigning in california, and cnn will have live coverage of his campaign rally in san diego at 5:00 eastern. and this weekend c-span will have live coverage of the libertarian convention tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern when the
libertarian candidates hold a debate. and the party will choose its presidential candidate. libertarians are the only third party on the ballot in all 50 states. but tonight on c-span, president obama's trip to hiroshima, japan. he said since the nuclear bomb was dropped, the two countries formed a bond. here's a portion of what he said. >> the united states and japan forged not only an alliance, but a friendship that is one far more than what we could form through war. the press peoples, and
liberations, one, and an international community established institutions and treaties that work to avoid war, and aspire to restrict and roll back and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons. still every act of aggression between nations, every act of terror and corruption and cruelty and oppression that we see around the world shows our work is never done. we may not be able to eliminate man's capacity to do evil, so nations and the alliances we formed must possess the means to defend our selves. but among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the
courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them. we may not realize this goal in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. we can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. we can stop the spread to new nations and secure deadly materials from fanatics. and yet that is not enough. for we see around the world today even how the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible
scale. we must change our mind-set about war itself to prevent conflict through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts after they have begun. to see our growing inner dependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent competition. to define our nations not by our capacity to destroy but by what we built. and perhaps above all, we must re-imagine our connection to one another as members of one human race. >> president obama's trip to hiroshima made him the first u.s. president to visit the site of the world's first atomic bomb attack. after his remarks he met with two survivors. you can see his entire comments from hiroshima, japan, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span.
>> this memorial day weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday evening at 6:00 eastern on the civil war -- >> sherman could not agree more. by the time he captured atlanta in 1864, his thoughts on the matter had fully matured. once again, a rebel army had been defeated and another major city had fallen and still the confederates would not give up. so rather than continue the futile war against people, he would now wage war against property. >> georgia historical society william gross on william sherman arguing sherman's march to the sea campaign was hard war rather than total war and his targets were carefully selected to diminish southern resolve. sunday evening at 6:00 on "american artifacts." take a took with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell viewing some of the oldest rooms in the capital like republican leader suite, conference room and his private office. >> i had the good fortune to be
here on august 28th, 1963, when martin hraouter king made the i have a dream speech. i confess i couldn't hear a word. i was here and he was looking on throngs, literally thousands and thousands of people. you knew you were in the presence of something really significant. >> at 8:00 on presidency former aides to lyndon johnson and richard nixon talk about the role of the presidents during the vietnam era. >> lbj anguished about that war every single day, and that is not an overstatement. the daily body counts, the calls either to or from the situation room often at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning to see if the carrier pilots had returned. >> historian h.w. brand joined by former lbj aide tom johnson
and former nixon aide alexander butterfield to explore the president's during the conflict. on real america, five-part series on the 1975 church committee hearings convened to investigate the intelligence activities of cia, fbi, irs and nsa with testimony by cia director william colby, fbi's james adams, nsa director allen, fbi informants and others. >> we are here to review major findings of fbi domestic intelligence including programs aimed at domestic targets. fbi surveillance of law abiding citizens and groups, political abuses of fbi intelligence and several specific cases of unjustified intelligence operations. >> for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to c-span.org.
israel's ambassador to the u.s. spoke about the anti--defamation leagues national leadership summit in washington, d.c. this is about 45 minutes. >> he was born and raised in miami beach, florida, a city where both his late father and brother served as mayor, and you can consult the summit app about information in his journey. the at ba he is one of the most trusted advisers.
okay, well, now as ambassador of israel to the united states, my mission is to advance the interests in washington and also to strengthen the relationship between israel and america. now, this year fulfilling that mission has included focusing on ways to combat iran's continued aggression and terror, working on efforts to support direct peace negotiations between israelis and palestinians and to oppose one-sided anti-israel initiatives in the international arena as well as try to forge a
new tenure memorandum of understanding. but today i want to use my very limited time here to talk to you, not about my mission, but rather to talk to you about your mission. and the adl stated that commission clearly over a century ago, quote, to stop the defamation of the jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all, and this organization can take great pride in the work it has done over the last century to advance that mission, and the adl has long been an internationally respected voice, both in the fight against anti-sepl teuzam and in the broader struggle for civil rights and human rights and also is recognized when the rights of one group are in danger, the rights of all groups are in danger. but restating this more than
100-year-old mission is also a reminder of what some seem to have forgotten, and namely that the defamation of the jewish people proceeded the birth of the jewish state. the adl opened its first office in 1913, a year before the outbreak of world war i, and two decades before the rise of hitler and some 35 years before the birth of israel, the adl was founded to stop the defamation of the jews and as people in this room noel, the defamation of the jews was not a problem unique to the 20th century. it's a problem that has been unique for more than 20 centuries. it has plagued both backwards and progressive societies, and has transcended time and space, face and cultures, and i mention
this seemingly benign point, because too many forgotten it, and too many believe the state of the jewish is the cause, and israel is the cause of the spread of anti-sepl temitism is cause. the irony, ladies and gentlemen, is that while some today believe that israel is the cause of anti--semitism, and some believed israel was the cure. at that time some of the greatest zionist thinkers, hate tres for jews was a function of
jews being a minority everywhere and a majority nowhere. they believed if israel had a state like all the nations that jews would be treated like all the nations so at the beginning of the 20th century, they believe the cause of anti-semitism, they did not have the state. the truth is, israel is neither the cause of nor the cure for anti-semitism, and it gave the jewish people the power to defend themselves against that, and it could defend itself military when that hatred spilled over into physical attacks, and by restoring to the jewish people a sovereign voice
among the nations, it also enabled us to defend ourselves against the defamation that often precedes physical attacks, and for the last 68 years, as israel has raised that sovereign voice, the adl has time and again raised its powerful voice as well, and for that all of israel is profoundly grateful. [ applause ] >> now, ladies and gentlemen, today the defamers against home we must raise our voice together are the proponents of the movement to boycott, digress from and sanction israel, and the movement to cast israel as a perpetrator of genocide, and as an evil that must be destroyed. the bbs is an anti-semitic
movement and should be exposed as such, but it is not enough -- you can clap in a minute -- but it is not enough to simply pin a scarlet letter "a" on the chest of the movement. we must explain why the bds movement is an anti-semitic movement, and that's not difficult to do, because one of the hallmarks of that is to attempt to judge jews by a different standard than other peoples, and that's why an attempt to judge israel by another standard in other countries is simply an old hatred in a new form, and that's why when a christian church group, born academic society, wishes to boycott israel or digress from israel, the question we should be ask something a very simple one, is israel the 51st, 91st, or 131st
country on their list of boycotting countries? if it is, then we should not accuse the members of that organization of anti-semiticism, we should assume they are misinformed and that it has some principle to all countries in the world and that israel has for some reason been wrongly included, and our job should then be to engage this organization in dialogue and get them all the facts and to insure that they know the truth. we should make sure that they know that israel's open society about our independent courts, about our commitment to protect the women, rights, minorities and gays and all of our citizens and protect the sites of jews, muslims and christians and all
faiths and i would put the decision of freedom house to list israel's press as only partially free in the category of the misinformed. now anybody with the slightest familiarity with the israel press knows that this is an absolute absurd decision. if freedom of the press is defined as the freedom to check the abuse of government, and to hold the powerful to account, israel's press is one of the freest presses in the world. still, i would not call freedom house's decision an anti-semitic decision, because they have included so many other countries in that category, i would say it's a misguided decision and the answer is more engagement and more dialogue so they can get the facts straight. but when we hear that a methodist church group decided to die vest from israel or when
we hear an american academic society has called for boycotting israeli academics and we find out that the only country being targeted by these organizations for divestment and boycott is israel, we should assume this is anti-semiticism. and where christians are being decapitated, the one country being targeted is the only region where christians are safe only makes the anti-semiticism that much more disgraceful, and the one country whose academics are boycotted are the country where academics can say what they want and research what they want, only makes the anti
anti-semicm. here the burden of proof should not be placed on the jewish state or jewish people to explain why the anti-semitics are wrong, and rather to explain why they are right. they must be asked the simple question, by what principle has israel been singled out, alone among the nations of the world for boycott, divestment and sanctions? believe me, there is no principle other than anti-semiticism. that is why here the answer is not to inform the uninformed but rather to delegitimize the delegitimizers. ladies and gentlemen, one of the
biggest fallacies, when it comes to anti-semitics, is to believe that it's a disease that information and education alone can eradicate. those who believe this should learn the history of the jewish people, and they should learn that it has inflicted both the ignorant and the educated, and they should learn the legacy of the ancient hatred is not only in the pitchforks and clubs of the pragues, but also in the poison minds and pens of the voltars, and they should read a book called "the devil and the jews," and it was published in 1940 on the eve of the holocaust. here is a passage from it that we should all be wise to keep in
mind in the years ahead. all the statistics and the arguments that have been advanced to refute anti-semitic libels have not succeeded in effectively demolishing a single one of them. they thrive despite the fact they could be historians, and all the rest, not to mention simple lovers of truth can argue themselves blue in the face, but those that believe those fables go on believing, and acting as though they were true. why in heaven's name is this? there can be but one answer. people believe such things because they want to believe them. they are predisposed to accept any and all accusations
irrespective of objective merit that fit into their preconceived notion of the jew, and this specific charges are nothing of an underlying animus. if one is temporarily outmoded, a dozen others spring up in its place, and they need be but superficially plausible to be embraced as goss fell truth. we must spread the trust unapologetically, because the facts and the truth do matter. they matter first of all to the jewish people, but matter to people of goodwill and open minds everywhere. but we must also recognize that old habits diehard.
across the ages? a century ago, this organization set out on a mission to stop -- to stop defamation of the jews. that is a noble mission, certainly worth pursuing. i'm just not sure any force on earth can fully achieve it. but if we cannot stop of defamation of the jews, with you certainly can fight the
defamation of the jews. we can spread the truth. we can expos the hypocrisy, we can delegitimize the delegitimizers, and can do it while knowing while this war may not fully -- the actions of each and every soldier can make a difference. so to you, the soldiers of the adl, i say thank you. thank you for continuing to israel's steadfast partner in defending the jewish people and the jewish state. thank you. [ applause ]
>> and now jonathan comes in. thank you. i think they said i was going to take a couple questions, which i'm happy to do now. no questions? yes. [ inaudible ] >> the question is, is there a difference between anti-semitism and anti-zionism? right. what i would say is no. i'm going to explain way. there is a difference. 6 that is a difference for, and a number of years ago i worked with a mentor on coming up with
a difference that -- called it the 3-d test, to be able to show the difference between legitimate criticism of israel, which could be tough, and criticism that spills over into anti-semitism. those three ds were demonization of israel, a double standard, and the denial of israel's very right to exist. now, by the way, those of you who don't know, the reason why i chose the 3-d is the image, because when you watch a 3-d movie, everything is blurred if you're not wearing the glasses. if you put it on, it pops up at you. what i didn't know is that when i said that, i said why don't we call it the 3-d test, he had never seen a 3-d movie. now, i suppose growing up in the soviet union and spending nine years of your adult life in the gulag probably limits your 3-d
movie-watching possibility, but that was supposed to show the difference. i suppose you could argue before the birth of israel that if you were against zionism, you were not necessarily antiaccept might. the fact that jews believe something you what are the anti-zionists saying? they're saying that the jewish people who have a state do not have a right of self-determination, along among nations in the world? to have that position to be an anti-synenist and argue that you believe the palestinians -- the palestinians trace back their history as a collective all the way back to the 1950.
they trace our identical -- we were calls ourselves jews. i'm not getting into the debate. i'm saying when the palestinians referred to themselves as palestinians, we've got a jewish people for 4,000 years, so you're going to be against the right, that's what zionism is. now, zionism, the definition, the right of the jewish people to self-determination in the land of israel. you can argue, i suppose what you jutish people is. you can argue the borders of that state, in the land of israel, but if you were arguing against the self-determination of the jewish people, and you are denies the right of jews to a state of their own, i think -- unless you don't believe any people's have rights to states -- if you are somebody who does not believe there
should be any nation, any nations in the world, any nation states in the world, then i suppose you can be an anti-zionist wow an anti-semite, but you bluff there's in that deserve a right to a state, but you deny the jewish people a right to a state, you have a problem called anti-semitism. now? [ inaudible ] >> well, obviously all -- oh, i'm sorry. the question was -- what is the position of israel to the rising anti-semitism in europe and jews leaving europe and coming to israel? well, first of all, we believe that all governments should protect their citizens, regardless of their faith. so if jews want to stay in france, they should be protected from anti-semitism in francis. what they should know is that
they always have is the right to come to israel and live there. that is a right that everyone, who is a supporter of israel should never take for granted, because it's a right that we didn't have as a people for many, many centuries. we were kicked out of one land, and then looking for some other king or president to take us in. what's interesting is, with all the problems of you jews in europe, one question that no one is asking is where are those jews going to go? and that is, because israel is an answer. it may not be the answer for those jews, but it is an answer, and that is, i think the raisin dawn tray. i will tell you, this may be a personal observation from somebody who lives in jerusalem.
i see a direct tex between anti-semitism in france and the quality of restaurants in jerusalem. the worse it gets there, the better the eating in jerusalem. one more question. >> jews have a long history of how woulding ourselves to a higher standards. it seems a lot of young jews involved are just exercising that pattern. >> let me make a -- i make a -- the question is, sorry -- jews are holding themselves to a higher standard than a lot of the jews who were involved in bds are simply continuing that long-standing tradition. here i would make an addendum to what i said, i'll specifically mention church groups, and i specifically mentioned academic groups, because those are national organizations or
international organization, so therefore if you single out israel as a national or international organization, for boycott, i believe you're an anti-semite. i do not believe the same can be said of jews or palestinians who are engaged in the movement. i won't call any apriori acceptites, because the fact they are more interested in israel than north korea, syria or a hundred other countries in the world, because they feel a specific connection or responsibility to that. i wouldn't call them anti-semites, they might be, but i don't know it by the nature of the move itself. what i would call them is moral idiots, which is different. there have been many jews who have stood with the enemies of the jewish people throughout our history who thought they were doing it for the best of reasons, and who didn't intend
to bring harm to the jewish people, but ultimately they brought to on power forces that cause great harm to the jewish people. that was the case. people don't know this. believe it or not they supported until about 1935. in the case of the bds movement, all of the non-jewish supporters of the movement, i think without exception, all want to see the destruction of israel, maybe you can find one or two people. all of them, and they'll say it openly. they don't support peace between israel and a future state of palestine. they support the dismantling of israel. and for jews to join those groups who are enemies of the jewish people, and i say enemies, because they intend to bring harm, your adversaries,
your opponents, those who disagree with you on the best way to achieve a common objective. your enemies are those who try to do harm. so 99% of people who are leading the bds movement want to cause harm to the jewish state and the jewish people. that is why i call those jews who mistakenly and misguidedly join them, i call them moral idiots. we have a long tradition of them among our people, but we have a new tradition over the last 68 years.
. ladies and gentlemen, to make a special presentation, please welcome the adl's ceo jonathan greenblatt. good afternoon. first of all, before i get started and we begin the presentation, can i just remark upon what a pleasure it was to have ambassador dermer here today and thank you for the clear and cogent and really forceful conversation, and i think his description of anti-zionism versus anti-semitism and the linkage between the two is really something to take to heart. there's nothing wrong with
criticizing policies of israel, we all do it, but when you question the legitimacy of the state in the way that no one does, that's a probably. we should just acknowledge that that's what it is. many years ago before terrorism was a concern for all of us, and before the horror of 9/11, our friend and long testify time supporter alan gary had the foresight to provide our expertise on terrorisms and extremests to law enforcement so they could do a better job of protecting all of us. in the intervening years the material and information that we, through the center, have been able to supply to law enforcement have proved to be extremely valuable in the work they do day in and day out, protectingous.
the list of prior rye sip gents is in your program. it's incredibly impressive roster. today we have the opportunity to honor another distinguished member of the law enforcement community and truly a national leader. on december 18th, 2014, four months after the events in ferguson, missouri, made race relations between the police and community they serve a subject of national attention, president obama signed an executive order establishing the task force on 21st century policing. the task force was charged with
making recommendations on matters ranging from the use of deadly force to police training, but it's paramount goal was to act as a catalyst for rebuilding the trust between the people and the guardians who serve them. the president's choice to lead this initiative as cochair of the task force was a man widely recognized inside and outside of law enforcement as one of the profession's most important and influential leaders. that individual is charles h. ramsey. in a career spanning more than four decades, charles ramsey earned the distinction of having led three of the nation's largest police departments -- chicago, washington, d.c. and philadelphia. he simultaneously served as president of the two of the nation's most prominent law enforcement organization, the
majesty chiefs association, and the police executive research forum. commissioner ramsey is in the civil rights and police community relations. now, he grew up on the south side of chicago and enrolled in the city's please cadet program to help pay for his college tuition. chief ramsey quickly rose through the ranks becoming a chicago police department's judgest african-american sergeant, lieutenant and captain. by the time he was appointed deputy superintendent, chief ramsey had established a reputation for invasion within the department and across the country, particularly in this area of building truth between police and communities. in 1998 he was celebritied to serve as chief of police of washington, d.c.'s metropolitan police department transforming abagency weakened by budget cuts, low morale and misconduct. he literally transformed it into
one of the finest in the nation. in 2007 he left washington to become commissioner of the city of philadelphia's police department, the nation's fourth largest. this past january he retired. he has always believed a law enforcement leader must also be an educator and a mentor and a role model. commissioner ramsey has received that david friedman, our very own was the first community leader he met when he came here to washington, d.c. shortly after they met, david and chief ramsey visited the united states holocaust memorial museum together. that experience affected chief ramsey so profoundly that they asked if adl and the holocaust museum could create a training program for his police recruits. the training could use the history of the holocaust to increase laud enforcement's understanding of the relationship to the people it
serves, and role of the protector of the constitution, and as a guardian of our individual rights. he wanted something different, one that could connect he recruits not just intellectually but emotionally. we will no change behave if we do not change attitude we will not change toad if we do not change a person's heart. we need to affect the way that officers see themselves and their role in society. we need to change what is inside them and help them see things differently. the new program that resulted from chief ramsey hayes inspiration, we call it law enforcement in society. it was launched this 1998 training ought sworn officers in the department. and fbi director heard about the training and mandated that every new fbi agent must go through
this program, this adl program. it's trained more than 110,000 law enforcement professionals in the u.s. as well as senior leaders from 85 foreign countries. it is now a required component in the fbi's major training programs for u.s. and international law enforcement. last year, the bureau redesigned its new agent curriculum and built it around laes. think about it. the program is a core component of commissioner ramsey's own police executive leadership institute. aboval else, he says our role is to protect and preserve the rights of the people, defending these rights for all people all of the time, ultimately defines us's police officers. for more than four decades, charles ramsey has devoted his life to fulfilling that role. at a time when our political season is so charged, there's so
much rhetoric that pushes people apart, it's an honor and privilege that we have the opportunity to celebrate chief ramsey, whose entire career is about bringing people today. we are proud and honored to present the service award to none other than commissioner charles h. ramsey. i'd like to read the inscription to everyone. we are proud to present the institute service award to charles h. ramsey in recognition
of your distinguishes rear in public service and fro preserving and defending our democratic values. the gore owits institution did dedicated with timely information and education material to enhance its productivity chief ramsey, and of course we'd like to thank alan, gary and darrell here today, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. you took a lot of what i was going to say in your introduction, but i want to thank you. i was just handed the award by a man who means a lot to me. i handed him that award. without david, i wouldn't be
standing here right now, quite frankly. i was a brand-new police chief here in washington, d.c., and jonathan, i'm not certain if he was the very first person i met, but among the first. it was too close to call. i can't really remember. you know, when you first take over in a city as a police chief, you get a lot of letters, and a lot of invitations, because everyone wants to meet you. i came from chicago. i want from washington. i no history with anyone so it really didn't matter. everyone wanted to know who the guy was in town. one of those letters came from david friedman. obviously i had never met david before, didn't know him, read the letter and said are, okay, it sounds fine, interesting, a chance to visit the holocaust memorial museum with him.
it was put on my schedule. s to be honest, it was absolutely nothing more than one more thing on my schedule. you look to see what you have to do each day. my family was still in chicago, so i was -- every other week i was flying pack to chicago. that afternoon i was scheduled to fly back to chicago. so that would fill my morning, i would leave, go to the airport, you know, that would be it. so i go to the museum and i meet david, but i also met another individual, irene weiss, and it was a fairly large group of people. members from adl, from the museum itself, and of course irene and her data were there, and as we're walking through the museum, i'm walking alongside of irene, and she's telling me her story as we wall through the
museum. now, i'm 66 years old, so i went through high school in the 1960s. i have to admit, history was not my favorite subject i don't recall learning an awful lot about the holocaust when i went through school. it was glossed overs it probably to a large extent is still not dealt with the way it probably ought to be dealt with, but in the 1960s, i guarantee you it was not really talked about, at least not in the chicago public school i went to. so i knew a little bit about it and so forth, but i really didn't understand everything that took place, so going through the museum, it was an incredibly powerful experience. in fact, it was haunting, because after i left i couldn't get the images out of my mind, and i felt troubled. i didn't quite know why, because
when you go on a tour like that, you're kind of moving quickly, you can't stop and read everything. you've got to keep it moving. i remember just one very powerful month when i'm with irene, and we get to that one part of the museum when you go to this boxcar that was used to transport jews to the concentration camps. and she said, this is very much like the car that my family and i were placed in and taken to auschwitz. we walked through the car. she kind of pointed to a couple areas in the car, where there was a bucket for people to relieve themselves, how crowded and hot it was, and they should there's a huge photograph that you see as you step out of the car. she appointed to it and says, that's me right there. at that moment in time someone snapped a photograph, and she explained exactly what it was she was doing at that moment.
she was wearing a scarf, had on a coat. she was turning around to try to get a glimpse of her mother and younger sister, because she said as she got out of the car, they were being in two lines, one that would be executed immediately. the soldier hesitated, not knowing what to do. her mother and sister were sent for immediate execution, and she was sent to work. she was turned around just to get one last glimpse of them. obviously she doesn't know what was about to happen. that's when the photograph was snapped. it literally sent chills down my spine to actually see that. when i left the museum, i was thinking about it. i came back a few days later unannounced, because i wanted to take my time and go through the
museum. it wasn't long until i saw what bothered me. one is a police officer, a soldier with his german shepherd with this crazed look in his eye. i never understood the role of police in the holocaust. i always thought of it as being soldiers, nazis. i never thought about police. as i went through and saw more and more about how police were involved in this, it made me stop and made me think about the role of police in a democratic society, which germany was, and how could people took an oath similar to mine allow something like this to happen. now, we've been struggling with race relations and all kinds of tensions for a long time in policing, and we were taking an approach which, you know, i was part of it, though i didn't -- i felt uncomfortable, but to put
officers through something called sensitivity training, which is a terrible title in itself. one implies that everybody is insensitive, right? so you sit there and white cops on one side, bland and la continueso, everyone has arms folded, and it's a total waste of time, because you're automatically almost accusing people of being racist or some kind of bias that's out of the control, what have you, but i saw this as an example. that is not the issue. the issue is really the role of police in a democratic society, and the ambassador said it in his remarks. a country has a right and obligation to protect all of its citizens, not allow any group to be singled out for any kind of different or special treatment. the holocaust being an event that's very, very real, but happened at a point in history before the people, the officers sitting in that classroom were even alive. so it doesn't carry the same kind of emotional baggage that it would when you start talking
about current race relations, yet it's about similar issues we are discussing, so pardon the expression, but it's almost a back-door way of getting at current issues, but seeing what happens when officers lose sight of the primary responsibility, and that is protecting the constitutional rights of all people, and what can happen if you allow yourself to start sliding down that slope so i gave david a call, i didn't know david that well. i thought this guy is going to think i'm totally on nuts. it was a thought, an idea, but not had been fleshed out. we got together, we talked and he didn't throw me out. we got the museum people involved, and they began the hard work. i did the idea and go ahead credit for it. i didn't do any of the work, and they started to carve out a curriculum. we went through a lot of
different versions of it before we got it right, but the bottom line is, it really did stimulate thought. it stimulated emotion. it got people really understanding what it means to be a police officers and how unique and important our role is in society. if you ask the average police officer what their role is, a lot of them will say to enforce the law. the reality is that that is a very narrow slice of what we do. it's also a reality in this country that when you look at the history of law enforcement in the united states, we have not always stood on the right side of justice here, as we would define cruz today. you need only think about the civil rights movement, all the things that have happened in this country. we have evolved and continue to evolve, but there's baggage there. we have not always lived up to the oath of office that we take. so this is a way to have that kind of discussion.
we have since as part of major city chiefs when, decided we would start a leadership development. leaders and policing are more by luck than design, unfortunately. there's really no leadership program that really developed the future leaders in our profession. you know, it reminds me of a quotation that i saw that, you know, true leaders don't develop followers, they create other leaders. i think we all have to have the attitude and we all go about -- we started the institute. the first person i called is david, because i wanted the museum and adl to be a part of that, and they are. we've had three cohorts go through, 46 people, and of the 46, ten have already become chiefs in this country. that's a pretty good track record.
they will lead departments in a way unlike people have in the past, because they'll have a deeper understanding of what it really means to be a police officer, but more importantly what it means to lead a police organization, and in today's environment, today's climate, it's more important than ever. so i humbly accept this award. i share it with you, david, because you started the whole thing. without you it never would have gotten off the ground. i want to thank you, i want to thank the united states holocaust museum for their efforts, everyone that played a role, because you're making a huge difference. you certainly have made a difference in my life. so god bless you, and thank you very much.
republican presidential candidates donald trump is campaigning today in california c-span will have live coverage of hi rally in san diego at 5:00 eastern. the libertarian party holds its presidential convention this weekend in orlando, florida. it's the only third party on ballots in all 50 states. c-span will have live coverage starting tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern when the candidates debate. then c-span will be live again from the convention sunday morning at:45 eastern when the party chooses its presidential candidate president barack obama paid tribuoublibute to the vict the hiroshima bombs. he joined japanese prime minister shinzo abe at the memorial in japan and laid a wreath. here's a look.
primetime. look for our history features each night at 8:00 eastern including a three-day vietnam war summit, a 50th anniversary retrospective on the conflict. monday, the battle of -- and the soldiers' battle after the war with physical and psychological trach, and a conversation with henry kissinger. >> as the administration went on, a president who all his life had been known as concerned primarily with domestic policy was engulfed in a division of the country. actual authors and historians that was divided after the war, and then conversations with ken burns and lynn novak. >> by the time we got four, five decades away with the historical
triangulation can take place, to have the kind of distance necessary not to make a journalistic response, but something that is hopefully greater than the sum of its parts, you begin to realize that almost everything you thought you knew was not true. >> wednesday, a look at the war from the perspective of those who fought it and u.s. foreign relations after the war and those with vietnam. thursday at 8:00 p.m. our real america series look at the church committee hearings convened to investigate the intelligence activities of the fbi, cia, irs and nsa sgloop and with the museum of culture opening in september, an all-day conference with talks on african american religion, politics and culture and african-american history as american history. >> i couldn't get that out of my mind that my students were thinking somehow this afric african-american history wasn't real, because it -- there was no
textbook textbook, as there was in all of the american history courses taught in the department of history, so i decided to write a real textbook. >> for the complete es schedule, go to cspan.org. he. on wednesday and thursday, june 1st and 2nd, c-span's "washington journal" will be live in laredo, texas, to talk about issues facing the region and the country. on wednesday immigration with brandon darby. he talk about the flow of illegal immigration in the area, the players involved as well as effort to cover, and nely biel ma will discuss practices immigration law, who she represents and the laws on the books. and alfredo core chaddo examines
the car tells, including the violen violence. he's the author of "midnight in mexico" a reporters's journey into a country's descent. on thursday or focus will be trade. we'll discuss the flow and volume of trade across the laredo at the border. and we'll talk about how trade benefits laredo and the country. then bob cash, state director for the texas fair trade coalition, and nafta critic looks at how the trade deal took jobs from southern texas to mechanic ko. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal"b ginning wednesday and thursday, july 1st and 2nd, from laredo, texas. join the discussion. the ambassador talked about
recent ongoing efforts, as well as the potential for sustained democracy. i have the honor of being president and ceo of washington, d.c. ours is an institution committed to global our goal tonight is to provide our distinguished guests an opportunity, all of you after this presentation by ambassador facilitated by the distinguished ambassador ron newman to ask
questions, please listen carefully. to listen doesn't mean to hear, but we've got an opportunity tonight to listen to and hear from two experts representing a region of the world, afghanistan, a sovereign nation, that is a participating member in our global community, affiliated with the world bank and imf, a country in transition, thanks to the pefrt. others in the u.s. in afghani and world community, working together in harmony towards a common goal.
in the world, diplomatic and global community. has been maintained reinforced consolidated until the present day. it's population now is almost 30 million, only 27% of its population lives in urban areas. two official languages. afghanistan is a land linked not a landlocked. it's a land linked nation almost
as big as the state of texas. take it as a compliment. education is critical to afc's future. the demographic that it has, unless it receives equally boyce and girls, union men, young women is quite access, and the future of afghanistan will not be as bright as everyone in the world community wants it to be. in may 2012, u.s. and afghanistan signed the enduring strategien partnership great, a ten-year partment that reflects the shared commitment to combatting terrorism and promoting peace, democratic values and economic opportunity in afghanistan and the region
now another 200,000 strong, the after gag armed forces are drawn from throughout afghanistan and that together by a common cause, protecting and helping to develop a new afghanistan. numerous challenges, daesh and cure stan province threatens -- afghan youth, impatient for economic development and for employment aren't too enthusiasten about their current prospects. in rural areas, threatening national policies. differences in partisan affiliations, and government corruption, meyers national unity.
the task of rebuilding a new afghanistan is a challenging one, but through the effort. afghanistan has made strides towards being a prosperous stable and peaceful nation. on saturday i this the prospect of peace was enhanced i hope the reports are true. i hope that mullah actar mansour was killed, and i hope that whoever replaces him will see that there is a path to the future that should not involve conflict. has increased from 1 million boy in 2002 to 8 million boys and girls to date. that is a phenomenon
achievement, and it augers well for the future. selection plan on peace and security will align afghanistan with international acords and promote article 22 of the afghan constitution. where the citizens of afghanistan, man and womans have equal rights and duties before the law. and finally president ga hanni's jobs for peace program seeks to stem the exodus leaving for europe and reunite to rebuild their nation. ambassador, in the short time that i have known him, six months, where i have followed day by day the activities that he and the leaders of his country have committed to in the
quest to peace has impressed me greatly. he's a man of honor, a man of tiring, tiring soft diplomacy in terms of appealing to hearts and minds, educating people to the new afghanistan. he served as ambassador to the united states since september 2015. previously served as deputy chief of staff to the afghan president. he founded the afghan student organization. the think tank discourse afghanistan, and has initiated multiple programs for afghan women and orphans in kabul, and he's about to become a dad. this is good. moderating today's discussion is one of the diplomat sell's great rascals, ambassador ron newman,
a mischievous fellow, with a wry sense of humor. there are only two ambassadors families in the history of u.s. diplomacy where a son has followed a father in their diplomatic posting. so we have here tonight one of those individuals, because the first one's name was adams a long time ago. but ambassador newman and i are friends. we're professional colleagues. we share the same space and we share the same point in space and time in terms of our commitment to doing anything that woe can as to mobilize whatever networks we have or can in support of your nation's quest for a long-term peace and
economic development and success in the global community. so i'm very honored to ask two ambassadors to come to our table tonight, but before i do so, i want to thank the ronald reagan building, the international trade center for their kinds in -- kindness in terms of -- i want to thank our director of international affairs and kristin roach, our director of global communications, and the interns who work with us. for their commitment to our cause. so please give a very loud, stomp your feet and clap your happens to ambassadors.
>> yeah, that was pretty good. >> thank you. 6 i guess ambassador newman will have something to say that. it's a pleasure. >> i've been called many things. i've had my name carried in the street in protest, but rascal is new. well, thank you, i think, ambassador mohib, such a pleasure to be here with us tonight. >> such a pleasure. thank you to the world affairs council to be here again. i met some of the members at our embaez we had a honor of hosting one of the events. it was a great experience and we decided to do it twice, on your ground. >> it's a great chance. it's an interesting evening, a
very interesting couple days in the news. before we go to the hard stuff, which i'm sure will then preoccupy us for most of the evening, mr. foster mentioned the size of the youth population, a great of the hope of afghanistan is in its use. while you're not quite youth, you're still emblematic of this new generation that comes from a very different background, but also what is lived through a lot of the tragedy of afghanistan. i thought it might be useful to give people a sense of afghanistan, if you would just take a movement or two to talk about your own background. >> okay. well, that's going to take a while. well, in brief, i would say that my -- as a child, no one would
believe that that childhood would produce something successful, but through hard work and dedication and people who believed in that potential, gave meed opportunity to be able to serve my country and have the honor to serve my country in one of our most important departmentic postings. i think that's a showing of where afghanistan is. we've got over 30 years of extremely difficult period, but the afghan -- the resilient people through our hard work and dedication and with the support of the community who saw the potential of afghanistan has turned the table around. today afghanistan is a functioning democracy. it has opportunities for our youth, for our population, and the opportunity that we didn't
have. we have pulled ourselves out of a rubble and built our country, a democracy that we continue to build on. >> well, you and your family went through a lot in the process of getting here. >> absolutely. but it's not just me, ambassador. the vast majority of afghans suffered through this war, and it has been -- we had to live in refugee camps, leave our homes, our homes being destroyed. we have had -- we had to live through war, civil war, and a lot of different period b. those -- whether it was outside of afghanistan, those of us lucky enough to go and find shelter outside and those who stayed in the country, all went through a difficult time. and we survived it. that's where i think the afghan
resilience comes to mind. to share a story, not to take away from the subject so much, a few -- a couple months ago, our football team -- well, we lost the finals to india in football, south asia cup, but the people were so proud they wanted to welcome or football team, our heroes. that morning, a bomb exploded outside the airport. there were threats of a second one, but that didn't stop thousands of afghans to still go and receive our heroes is with greatest joy. as the report had been proven right, just a couple hours later, another huge bomb exploded, but any message to anyone who wants to destroy that country, that was a message from the afghan people. nothing will stop us, we will
rebuild this country. >> i not in the years of dealing with afghanistan, i can hardly think of a friend, colleague or associate who has not had either themselves or in their family death respect torture, imprisonment and yet keeps going. this last year was another violent year. i think it's important for americans to understand that afghan security forces had more people killed last year alone than america has lost in its 15 years of warfare in afghanistan. the army is still together but it took some hard knocks last year on. what would you say, how do you think that the security forces of afghanistan will do this year?
it's always very dangerous to predict battle, especially close enough that somebody might remember the prediction, but, you know, people are worried. will the capital of capital of helmand fall. will offer capitals fall. possible. but how do you forsee the ability to the afghan forces to make out this year? >> to paraphrase our president last year, military was 12 years old. in one year it's now 20 years old. we've made huge leaps of progress but to come back to that determination we have seen so much that despite all those upsets last year i know many people were predicting that we would fail. despite a very difficult security force is not only made sure that the enemy doesn't make its tra strategic objective of
capturing and holding land. we also improved coordination. this year, the number of attacks expected to be as reports suggest, there's% more than last year. every attack where the majority, the taliban were defeated. this same place, a much more intense attack. we were able to do that. we were able to do that because for a nation among those security forces became better, we have a mump more offensive plan and how to defend our territory. also what's important to understand is the role of transition. last year was the first year where our security forces had the responsibility for securing afghanistan or territory for the first time ever. we have to rely on international
security forces about 600,000 security personnel. the official military since we left afghanistan. who were providing closed air support. stance and fighting shoulder to shoulder with us and all of a sudden, we were on our own. it was a testing time. it was a very difficult time. but we pulled through. we hilt rock bottom and we are on our way up. this year, we're in a much better and position and aisle confident that we'll be able to defeat any attacks that are on our territory this year. >> the united states seems to have made a rather critical attack in this last couple of days. how do you evaluate what is happening? we haven't heard much from the pakistanis about this attack which was in part of pakistan where we have never attacked before.
it's very significant blow of killing the taliban leader. speculation is dangerous and diplomatic speculate in way of getting in trouble. how much would you like to speculate on what happens as a result of it. >> it was an impediment piece and we welcome president obama's decision and his bold anchor to elim nayes a person who was sprenting other taliban elements and the cause for the government for peace process. it's not just about that action. it gives the afghan people hope that our most important partner, the united states, is serious and peace in afghanistan. it also created an opportunity for us to be able to build on that. and invite those who are, who are leaning towards peace but,
perhaps were prevented from. as you said, speculation is is difficult, we know, but it creates an opportunity. it has created a sense of hope in the afghan community. knowing that the sanctuaries that were provided to the taliban are no longer safe and they will be eliminated no matter where they are. >> if that is really true, it would be an important step. personally, i'm out of government. i don't speak for anybody but myself. but it was not clear to me from president obama's comments whether we actually have a change of american policy that will put the sanctuaries under pressure or whether we had a
one-time action that won't be repeated. i'm sure that's a big question for the taliban leadership as well. i hope you're right. we have lost a lot of people because of the sanctuaries that provide place for taliban to find medical care and keep their families and their leaders while their send their soldiers to battle. i don't know whether the american policies really changed or not. don't know how much con fluns you have in that. >> speculation is difficult. what we are hopeful what this event brings to create peace in afghanistan. to all those who might want to take the opportunity now. we have extended the hand of peace once again to all those taliban who are, who might want to take this opportunity now and join the afghan led and afghan owned peace process.
>> you have an interesting possible reenforcement for that, with all the talk about a peace settle. i know a lot of people are wandering whether that settle it with him, seems to be there almost there or sort of there. is that going to have an effect on things like the progress women have made or the afghan constitution. >> absolutely not. we don't make compromises on our constitution and that has been very clear right from the beginning that this process is to make, to provide an opportunity for those who may have legitimate grievances toward afghanistan and if they're willing the drop their guns and come to negotiate that the government would be open to negotiate a peace deal with them. not at the price of the progress we have made. >> we often, i'm sure you get
questioned, i get it occasionally. i'm sure you get it all the time about whether this holds out a threat to the progress women have made. >> absolutely not. that's been very clear message that we have always put on the peace process. we're not ready to compromise on the progresses we have made and the constitution. this has been a message we've always given but also to the taliban and those who are willing to. i don't think anyone has a problem with the constitution. this is the most islamic institution a country can have. we're confidence that would not be an issue for the progress
made. it's not just the progress that we have made. today, the afghan society is demanding that change. the people wanted it. the people implemented it. the strong woman, but also the dethe men who accompanied. you may remember from this horrific case of -- where the man came out to the street to protest for her rights. that is a positive change you cannot turn back. >> i'm happy to hear that. one of the pictures from the last election, it must have been 50 women all in burka holding up a long piece of blue plastic covering those long lines standing in the rain all helping
to hold up this plastic to keep the rain off them waiting to get into the polling place to vote. i thought that was such a powerful picture of their determination. when you look at this evolving democracy of afghanistan, it's pictured so on the one hand and the other hand. people get very carried away talking about which ever hand they want to shake. it's all about corruption. it's all failed. they came out despite being warned they could be killed. or have their fingers cut off if they voted. there's an appetite for democracy.
which would be very difficult the put back in the bottle. and in a sense for all of the problems afghanistan is more corrupt than, sorry, more democratic, it's not more corrupt. it's got much more competition for corruption. but for democracy, it is clearly more democratic. than anyone of the countries that touches its border. which is something we don't reflect, but how do you see this balance between old politics and corruption on the one hand and democracy on the other? how do you see that balance tilting in the future? >> i paint the picture. i work at the american university of afghanistan. it was a difficult pd