tv Capital News Today CSPAN May 17, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
had an impact on what happened with this bill. >> but did that plan seek -- speak to how you contain the oil once it has billed as opposed to how you stop it >> no, i am sorry, that particular plan is under current regulations more surface spill response plan for you are correct. >> thais my point. it seems like we're now in the scenario that was not envisioned. >> i think what i would say is that we are learning a lot from this and i think we will have to revisit what these plans mean in terms of intervention and the ability to contain or deal with something like this. >> i am told that two countries -- norway is in brazil -- require a backup mechanism to communicate with blowout preventers known as a cook -- and acoustics which rigid -- an
acoustic switch, whicis not required in the u.s.. should it be? >> we do not things up, because we had three triggering systems for the blowout preventer and then a manual intervention. this acoustic devices essentially another triggering device. it would have to be looked at through the investigation to see a fact that at some positive redundancy into the system. i do not know but i do not believe that it would have made a difference. >> do you think that u.s. regulations should be reformed to require this as a backup? even if it would not have helped in this situation? >> i think the regulation should be looked at. anything that would make this a lower probability in safer should be looked into. >> there has been reports that the battery on a blowout preventer was dead.
have you confirmed that to be the case? >> a blowout preventer on the rig in the riser and all of the equipmt are the property of transocean. i am not familiar with the condition of the batteries. obviously the investigation -- multiple investigations will look into that. >> you do not know whether or not -- to learn know, i do not. >> are there other special requirements that mms should impose on companies that are drilling in deep water that are dierent from the requirements for shallow water drilling? >> there are extensive regulations around deep water, very extensive. >> are there additional ones that you think we should take a look at? >> we are learning what this and we're going to share everything we learned with indury and the government. i do thinkhat some of the topics that we should look at
have already been talked about. testing blowout preventers in enhanced ways, maybe extra redundancy and various systems, those of the questions that are being asked and the investigation will help us understand what happened. and i am confident we will figure out what happened. that is a very important thing and i am confident of that. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator collins. >> first like to submit senator landrieu's questions for the record. >> without objection, we will for them to the witnesses. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i had some questions of mr. mckay. if you cover this in your opening stament i may have missed it. does bp havoc estimate of the cost of the company? >> no.
>> the law says that bp is the responsible party and you have confirmed that to date. i appreciate that. you have mentioned that you wl pay for the cleap and all legitimate claims. that sounds good and all of that but a year from now, will we be sitting here in this committee or through constituent services like senator landrieu has, will be sitting here and learning of industries that are not covered by this and may be in direct losses, things like that? >> our intention is to cover all legitimate claims associated with this incident. we've been very clear that the bp resources are behind this. we are clear to accept our duties as a responsible party. we intend to fully, fully lived up to that. we intend to stick with it. we're being what ihink it's
fair, responsive, an expeditious about how we're addressing claims. we continued -- we intend to continue that. our intention is exactly as stated. >> let me ask you about what might be the definition of a legitimate claim but also might be subject to argument, and that would be a seafood restaurant. it gets its food from the gulf and if this is disruptive to them, what they qualify for a legitimate claim? -- will take guidance from agencies, and the coast guard has acted for years in determining the legitimacy of clams and we will look to that for guidance. >> i understand that the way these drilling ptforms worked out in the gulf coast is that bp's name is the big name but there are lots of co-contractors and other companies involved.
will bp will be looking to those companies as well or individuals looking to those companies separately? tell us how that works? >> a me say very clearly. we are concentrating on two things, to get the leak stopped and cleaned up, and then secondly, we as the responsible party will do with the economic impact. we will put blame liability -- that is not our concern right now. >> let me ask you about the environmental damage that this bill will cause. like senator lieberman said a few moments ago, there are additional reports about the woes of well under water. to me, that is counter intuitive because i thought oil was lighter than water and it goes up to the surface. can you tell us about that? >> i am not familiar with the details of the claim. i understand that noaa put out a
press release questioning what that means. this oil does dispersed naturally as it is rising in the water column. not all that makes it to the surface. those particles are very small and they disbursed to the currents and through the water columns and gradually dissipates. i think what we're interested agai if someone has data on a plume to the terms of its extent, we would want to get that data. but we should be conscious -- cautious about dfining what kind of plumes route tre. >> you have mentioned sonar. can you determine sonar to determine where the oil is in the water? >> to a ceain extent. we have used it at the sub-sea leak. you can tune it to different sizes of particles. yes, it is helpful. right at the leak point, it has
been helpful. >> and the disbursing agent that you're talking about, there have been some repor that these might be more toxic than the oil. >> the dispersals that had been used, they are preapproved, those are biodegradable, they are less toxic than the oil spill, and to let everyone know, one of the things about sub-sea is the efficiency of the disbursement for volume of oil content is quite a bit lower than at the surface. >> i do have a concern and others do as well about the existence -- the impact this will have on sea creatures like coral and sponges that act as filters for the assertion and th these may not survive in the oil-type environment. you any estimate on wt we're looking at here?
>> note, we do not but we are in the process to understand that and that is noaa as the lead trusty in the study that we're participating in to do a natural resources assessment. that includes baseline as well as potential damage. but it's easy to think about oil that washes up on the shore and beaches. is that the way old as on the sea floor? does it claim to the sea floor for some are -- does it cling to the sea floor? >> some well and some will make it to the shore. this is a very light oil, so even in the current, it goes to an emulsion. what we have seen where we have seen anything at all our emotions.
>> there are ways to collect those in the water. >> in the water, i cannot say. >> is it safe to say that the environmental consequences of this bill may go on for years? >> we do not know the length of the consequences but we do know that we will be working with the federal agencies to understand, monitor, and deal with those consequences. >> i hate that as this next question but we have to. what with the attks of a hurricane bay? -- what would be a fax of a hurricane be? the lawyers we are aware that hurricane season is upon us and we're doing everything that we can to get the stock before then. should the hurricane occur, it would be difficult to project but we will be dling with it in the best way that we can with moving resources out of the way and dealing with any of the impacts of this all going ashore. >> mr. chairman, have one last
question this round. it it follows with that last questi and it would be -- today, what percentage of the oil has been recaptured? you have a chart that shows different ways to get rid of the oil or recapture the oil? what percentage of did have we been successful in getting rid of today? >> i do not have a number but i think it is a relatively small percentage. >> thank you, senator pryor. mr. mckay, thanks. i appreciate your testimony and all you're trying to do. i must say that in terms of lessons learned here, i end up where i began which is that oil companies have been doing a lot more deep water drilling. you're doing it to respond to a demand and in some sense we are all benefits. our economy and people are all
benefiting from this production of oil from offshore in american territory. we went ahead and did debt -- that without proper preparation for how to respond if there was an accident that deep under the water, and this has ben -- to call it a wake-up call is 7 horrendous understatement. i wish that you had done more to prepare for this but i must say as a member of the u.s. senate i hope that the federal government responsible for continuing to issue permits for deep water drilling without demanding that the companies to receive those purposbe prepared to deal with the effects of an accident, an explosion, to be better
prepared to stop the leak under water then obviously you are now because you have never had to do this before. and also to deal with the environmental consequences and to be prepared not only to stop the leak but to deal with the accumulation of water if those steps in a way that is not clear -- accumulation of oil what those steps that is not clear to me that we are able to do. those of the big lessons learned. they are painful lessons learned including your company. to restate what i said before, i hoped and prayed that everything you are trying to do to stop this oil from foreign oil into the gulf works. -- from the warring -- pouring
oil into e golf course. >> . chairman, i wanted to ma one final comment. all of us have raised -- have questions today. we are obviously cons -- extremely concerned about the crisis and the long-term implications. but in the interest of fairness, i do want to the knowledge that bp and mr. mckay have fully cooperated wi our inquiry, have not tried to get out of testifying today, and sadly that stands in stark contrast with the government agency, the mms, which refus to come testify today. i think it is only fair to knowledge, and happy though we are that the situation that we're in, that mr. mckay has fully cooperated with their inquiry. >> thank you for bringing that
up, centered collins. i appreciate your cooperation and i do not appreciate the failure of mms to come. secretary salazar will testify tomorrow before the senate energy commission. i understand the bro of seed -- the prerogative that the agency has to go before its committee of jurisdiction first. i hope those committee members will ask about the conduct of the mineral management service and the kind of demands they make for oil spill response plans, and just to restate the intention of senator collins and me to all the minerals management service's before our committee at some appropriate me in the not too cute -- too distant future to answer those questions if they are not answer to more. in the meantime, i thank you. the record of this hearing will remain open for 15 days for the submission of our -- -- of other
statements. with that, the hearing is adjourned. thank you. host: c-sp [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow, interior secretary salazar were testified before the senate environment subcommittee. live coverage begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. a panel led by former u.s. secretary of state madeleine albright has laid out a
strategic blueprint for nato. that is next on c-span. then a couple of campaign rallies for pennsylvania pose a campaign district to replace john murtha who died in february. then a panel on the future of iraq. >> clarence thomas on the confirmation process. >> i did not have a firm experience up there, and i just do not wish that on anyone. and also, something justice white said when i first got here has stuck with me. that it does not matter how you got here. it matters what you do after you have gotten here. >> with the new supreme court nominee it heading into the confirmation process, learn more about the nation's highest court in "the supreme court."
pages of candid conversation with all the justices providing unique insight about the court, available in hardcover and also as an e-book. >> and news coverage with the nato secretary of general, former secretary of state madeleine albright of lying to any strategy for nato. she headed up a group of advisers -- that outlined a commitment to the mission in afghanistan and increased ties to russia. this is about 30 minutes. >> thank you very much. i have been looking very much forward to this day. the presentation of the report on the new strategic concept from the group of experts, under the leadership of secretary all rigbright. first, let me thank secretary
madeleine albright, and all the members of the group for the hard work they have put into preparing this excellent report. i selected each member for his or her experience, expertise, and energy. i have high expectations, and they have been fully met. when i launched this process, and i emphasized that it should be the most transparent and inclusive in nato's history. the group shared that view and took it too hard. -- too heart. they consulted very broadly, from nato experts to parliamentarians to think tanks
and academics to the general public in nato and partner countries. this report has a small number of authors but thousands of contributors. and i believe is the better for it. -- it is the better for it. this report is not the strategic concept itself, but it is a very important first step in preparing a new concept. the report is now on our web site, and i am sure it will stimulate quite some discussion. i will follow the debate closely and take both the report and the discussion into account when i prepare the first draft of the strategic concept itself. as you know, it will be approved
by heads of state and government in lisbon this november. this report is a very solid basis for the discussions to come. the group has taken a hard look at the global security trends and given of frank and honest assessment of those areas where we need to transform in order to be fully optimizing the security challenge of the 21st century. i will leave it to secretary madeleine albright to present the findings of the report to you, but let me touch briefly for you at some of what i consider to be some of the highlights. first, the report confirms that are asfoundations important as effort and should only -- as ever and should only be reinforced.
the transatlantic link, the commitment to collective defense, the openness to new members. and's core purpose was, is, will remain to provide for the security of its members. but the report is equally clear that these days providing for the security of our members means doing many things differently. among many important points, it means taking on new challenges, such as cyber attacks and missle ile attacks. it means broadening our political considerations within nato and making for years -- making fuller use of the
washington treaty. it means engaging more broadly with global partners. as the report says, partnerships will be a central part of our daily work. and i fully agree. in the execution of operations, it means a comprehensive and civilian elements. these are the lessons learned from afghanistan. it means working for a real partnership with russia, based on shared interests and reciprocity. and it means reforming this organization. the report is very clear that nato reform is not just a nice slogan. it is essential.
and i fully share this view. there is a lot more in there, so let me now turn to secretary madeleine albright to present the group's work in more detail. after which, we will be happy to take your questions. and i close by thanking secretary madeleine albright and all the members of the group of experts very much for your excellent work on behalf of all the allies. before giving the floor to the secretary, let me extend a special word of appreciation to you. your energy, your best diplomatic experience, and your leadership have guided the group skillfully to this
successful conclusion. and i cannot think of anybody else who could have performed this challenging task so well. >> it is and my honor to work with you and the terrific staff and nato. i think this has been one of the most interesting task i have been given. i grew up with nato. it is to be a very important alliance, and i am delighted to opportunity to participate in providing some of the building blocks for your strategic context would -- that will make clear that this is a 21st century alliance. i think that we took, in some ways, the concept of that, in fact, the alliance and the 21st century has to be agile and
flexible in a time of unpredictability. that it was a very important to do two things -- to truly reassure the members of nato that are called v -- article v remains a core aspect of the alliance and we are prepared to promote the security of the alliance and to be willing to take on challenges abroad. so the title -- and short security and a dynamic engagement -- it does in fact reiterate the importance of article v, and the dynamic engagement emphasizes we need to deepen our partnerships and work cooperative way to prevent the challenges that emanate from beyond the north atlantic region from actually reaching our shores. i think it is very clear that an alliance in the 21st century needed to have some adjustments,
because the threats are so totally different. i call this a little bit a renewal of our vows, that nato cannot let the 21st century dangers divide leaders and weakened our collective resolve. and that it is important that at this stage and we understand who we are and how we are going to operate. i think what is new in this report is that the report is the first opportunity to reflect on what nato has done it since the last strategic concept in 1999. the alliance is a larger. and as a response from threats around the world -- -- response to threats around the world. the new partnership is this something that needs to be focused on much more. we called for an has partnerships with many nations and other international organizations and non- governmental entities. we also called for enhanced
political consultations and crisis management mechanism is. and we are looking at ways how to deal with new threats from non state actors. we have also made some proposals on how to make progress with russia. and we have stressed the need to improve nato's efficiency and effectiveness. i think we have understood throughout this process of something that the secretary general emphasized which is the importance of transparency and public support. we are an alliance of democracies, which is the basis of the alliance itself, which obviously means that our public needs to understand what this is all about. -- in the 21st century. so, i think we have in fact pointed out that we need to reaffirm a cooperative euro- atlantic security order, and
that we need to reach out to the partners in order to deal with the unpredictability in the 21st century. i think now we are happy to answer questions. mr. secretary general, let me end by saying that i thank you tremendously for your support and friendship in this. you now have the difficult job of taking these various building blocks and consulting further and providing the alliance with the leadership it needs in this very challenging century. thank you so much for the confidence you have put in all thus, for asking us to help you. thank you. >> [speaking french] >> i know that madeleine albright speaks very good friend. i will ask the question in french to both of you. -- madeleine albright speaks
very good french. regarding the fact that articlev v is still the core principle, regarding the fact that we need to increase the number of expeditionary missions for prevented purposes, to prevent a threat from reaching the territory of a member of the alliance, i think the report has indicated that now the alliance needs to determine the guidelines, to explain this kind of out of area action. so, do you think the report gives us a solid enough foundation for this, or do you think the allies will need to discuss this to determine these guidelines? >> let me take a first stab at this. i think it is very important for allies to think about what needs to be done before engaging in out of area missions. i think this is a question that needs to be discussed.
i hope this will be the case within the framework of the consultations that the secretary general will have with others. if we think about everything that has been going on, these horrible things, many times these horrible things take place outside of the allies appeared. . . >> and out of area interventions, i think that there are a couple of main
things. first of all, such an intervention needs to be done in order to protect the security of our member countries. secondly, such an intervention needs to address real international security issues. and be based on the principles that are enshrined in the united nations charter. i would also like to underscore here that nato's ambition is not to become the world's policeman.
>> a couple of questions if i might for both of you. first, on missile defense, we understood that the november lisbon summit -- i read in the report that it has become an essential mission. can you terrified -- can you clarify it if it is a nato mission, or do we wait until november for that one? and on the question of russia, they have identified borders on a threat -- as a threat to insecurity. thank you very much. >> on missile defense, we have not yet decided -- this is for the summit in november to
decide. this is an independent report from an independent group. this group considers missile defense an important mission. i could add to this that personally, i fully agree with the group of experts, but at the end of the day is for allies to decide. in my opinion, there is no doubt that we have faced threats, and we need real protection against real threat. to that end, we need an effective missile defense system that covers all populations in all allied nations. >> let me say that we, as an independent group, recommended that it be a mission as the secretary general has stated. we are alliance backed his
defensive and needs a deterrent. obviously, as secretary-general said, that will be a decision made by the heads of government and state. on the issue of russia, let me just say that when we went to russia, we had this particular discussion and tried to make clear that nato is not directed at any particular enemy. we do not see the gradual enlargement of nato on the basement -- basis of article 10 as something that should be viewed as a threat to russia. we all believe that and will continue to state it. the russians in their own turn have to decide how they react. the bottom line is, there are many aspects to this report that indicate that we see any number of ways that the alliance can cooperate with russia on dealing
with common threat. it is an open door, open hand in terms of dealing with russia. >> just on the question of my colleague, and political circumstances, do you consider any geographical limits? add to the secretary-general, don't you think that all current developments means some kind of [unintelligible] for the entire process of europe atlantic integration? thanks. >> we restated that nato should retain an open door policy based on the previous criteria that have been used. we made very clear that nato is an entirely voluntary organization. the guidelines and criteria that
have been used for previous membership will continue the same. >> as far as ukraine is concerned, nato policies still stand. we decided in 2008 that ukraine and also georgia will become members of nato -- nato if they wish and if they possess the necessary criteria. we of also stated that of course, it is for each individual country to decide its own path. and i have taken note of the fact that the government of the ukraine has stressed that will continue to cooperate with nato within the current framework of a nato-ukraine commission. >> secretary, and the next few years, a lot of public budgets
will see massive cuts. it is that reflected in your report? did you consider that? in general, how concerned are you that this economic climate will impact negatively on your organization? >> we did reflect that there were clearly economic issues, but we also talked about the necessity of fulfilling the responsibilities that nato membership brings in terms of support for the alliance. and the fact that it is an alliance in which there is shared responsibility, this is one reason that we believe the public needs to understand the value of nato and what it is they get for the budget that they put in. and the necessity of streamlining some of the decision making in terms of
having a common funding, trying to figure out ways of procurement make sense in the twenty first century. >> the current economic climate is a challenge. many countries have been forced to make deep cuts in government budgets, including defense budgets. and from a long-term perspective, it is of concern also to see the deepening of the gap between north america and europe. as far as defense investments are concerned. having said that, i also think government could take advantage of the crisis, if i may use that term, and use the constraints as leverage for necessary reforms and transformation to make sure that we really get value for money and make efficient use of
our resources. >> i want to come back to the reform issue that i have ask you about before, your call for increasing nato's efficiency, this is me reducing the size of political and military committees? this is something that nato has not managed to do any significant way since the fall of the berlin wall, and a related question, what does this mean for the actor threats in ways nato has done in the past? >> we certainly understood the problems of bureaucratic expansion and various committee growth. specifically, we give authority or asked to that authority be given to the secretary general to work further on his reform project to streamlined. we felt that we were not in a
position to significantly dictate which committees or what, but we really felt it was necessary in this day and age to streamline the number of committees and the way that they worked together, it had something to do with the previous question. we believe that nato needs to spend smarter. i think that that will be very important. the other parts, on and on state actors, we noted some of the problems that were raised as a result of non state actors. the terrorism or cyber security destruction of various maritime traffic lanes, etc., we point of those and say it is important for nato to begin to address itself more to those kinds of non state threats. >> could you just go a little bit into detail on the role of
what he was responsible for, energy security? or was it much broader? >> he was the vice chair, and he was somebody that has spent a great deal of time on all the subjects. if i were to say one thing that he really focused on, it was public support. he has spoken about it from the very beginning, and also in terms of rationalizing a lot of the decision making, he has been a full partner in this whole project. i must say that all of the experts contributed an incredible amount of time, knowledge, and hard work. i think mr secretary-general probably worked harder than we thought they would. he spent a lot of time, and everybody was dedicated to this challenge. >> if i can add to this, i
selected him because i also wanted a private sector perspective on this work. we are really profited from that in our deliberations. >> i wondered if you could say more about how you see nato's potential partnership with china developing, especially if your guard central asia as one of the principal hot spots for the next 10 years. and also on the matter of peacekeeping, what should nato's future role be, especially if there is a piece in the middle east? we recommend that nato forces serve any peacekeeping operation? >> let me say that we were quite open-minded in terms of the possibilities of partnership in the broadest way. not only the kind of ones that once would think right off.
we made a very special point about partnership with the european union, and we talked about russia. we did mention the importance of looking into ways of partnering with china on a variety of issues. that is something that needs to be explored. the issue generally in peacekeeping, this is something that we need to have previous experience -- that i have had previous experience. it is important to try to find the right organization and the right tool for peacekeeping. one of the aspects we talked about was how various organizations partner together on peacekeeping operations. we did leave open the possibility that if the parties were interested, and if there were peace to keep in the middle east, this was a potential possibility. i have used many subjective phrases here because it was just
something that was discussed in one of our seminars. >> i am from the ukraine television, and my question to the secretary-general -- i know you promised to remain transparent in history, and there are some interesting ideas. any results in exotic prepositions from the internet? you posted sorry -- for internet users, is there any idea from the people from the internet concerning the concept of nato? >> i think that several of the ideas presented by bloggers and other participants have been represtented -- represented in
the reform, maybe not in the same way they were presented on the internet, but they established a platform for proposals. it has been reflected in the report. we have really enjoyed that some many people have contributed to our work, and i hope that they will continue discussion as we approach the summit in november. >> we have time for one more question. >> coming back to the spending issue, can you take into account the fact that most of the nato and the eu members -- they are developing a stronger defense policy, and has its own defense agency that looks at streamlining of that spending, and to what extent do you think
-- how do you plan to be more efficient in how european members plan their budgets? >> let me say that we take note of the fact that the taxpayers are the same for most of the countries. it is very important to be efficient and try to figure out ways where, in fact, the two organizations can corroborate so there is not a duplication in terms of effort. and the way that there can, in fact, be a maximization or potential of these organizations. >> i'm afraid that is all we have time for. thank you. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
>> primary voters go the polls in kentucky, ore., and pennsylvania tomorrow. we will get a preview of those races. after that, the impact of the stimulus programs and the national deficit on the u.s. economy. and later, an author on his book, libertarianism from a-c. and the senate hearing on the nuclear arms treaty signed by president obama and russia oppose the president. secretary of state clinton, secretary gates, the joint chiefs chairman mollen of on the arms reduction treaty known as start. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. now, campaign rallies from this past weekend from the two
>> thank you very much, thank you. is this a great crowd or what? [applause] holy cats, thank you so much for coming out. and just for me, do you believe it? [applause] i know why you're here. are we going to have a big victory on tuesday? [applause] let me tell you something, it is both an honor and privilege to have president bill clinton, then to see all of us today is before this election. -- two days before this election. [applause] it was president clinton's leadership and his willingness to work with all parties, knowing that we need to focus on economic development and creating jobs.
during president clinton's time in office, he turned the budget deficit into a surplus. [applause] he turned to welfare and to work. -- welfare into work. [applause] he turned an economic recession largest peacetime economic expansion in the of the united states. thank you so much for being here. but i am also privileged, and i have to tell you, this supported the most meaningful support that i have during this campaign. i also want to thank our first lady for coming out. [applause] but you know, early on in this
campaign, there is a group of people, a lot of people jump in very early on helping me get set up, helping the fund-raiser, helping me do the things i needed to do. without their help, we would not be standing here today. there is a group of people out there, if they're supported not come out for second week of the campaign, we would not be standing here today. look at this crowd. this is absolutely wonderful. [applause] i have been very fortunate because i've received support from a very diverse group across this state, across the spectrum, republican, democrat, liberal, conservative. i am talking about economic development, talking about jobs, talking about doing the we want to do back here in pennsylvania. it is about you, is not about me. and i have to a admit that she
chastised me at the last event we both attended. i am looking around and trying to find my family. i promise you, i won't forget to introduce them again. my wife, nancy, my kids, my mother-in-law, my sister-in-law, my nephew, everybody came out. you know, standing up here makes me so proud to be doing the things that i am doing and running in this campaign. as is for everyone, this is a very bittersweet moment. if it weren't for the untimely passing of the congressman, we would not be standing here now at the podium. working for him all those years, he always had one single focus. he said is always about the work. not me tell you something, that is exactly right. it is about jobs and economic
development. that is why early on, i developed a jobs plan that eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. [applause] it includes an unfair trade deals that ship our jobs overseas. giving tax breaks to small jobs, and working on what could be our industry of the future, which is energy. we have coal, gas, solar power, we have wind power, and we have nuclear with westinghouse up north of pittsburgh. western pennsylvania can become the energy capital of the world. i am so excited to go to work that future for western pennsylvania. [applause] of course, deep into this campaign, most of you have seen the advertisements and attacks that have come at me.
i really have to be truthful with you. i believe my opponent is somewhat confused because i have seen his commercials, and he mentions nancy pelosi way more than he mentions me. a local newspaper told them that should move to california if he wants to run against nancy pelosi. i support that. [applause] we need to send a message to us at him and the republican party. this election is not about washington d.c.. it is about pennsylvania, about wayne's berger, unions town, it is about apollo. it is about us. it is not about that more him, it is about doing things back here. >> [inaudible] >> i appreciate that.
we have to get our message out to the people in the twelfth congressional district. in an election this close, we can't take a single vote for granted. 36 years ago in february 1974, congressman -- the congressman one by 122 votes out of a hundred and 20,000 cast. we can't leave one vote on the table. we have to go out and get every single vote. [applause] i am asking you to bring that same fight to our campaign now through tuesday. your help is needed. there volunteers, folks working through. their people up front. we need your help. we have to get every single vote. let me do the math here. we have 51 hours until the polls close on tuesday, and we can't miss one vote. with your help, we're going to win on tuesday and send a
message to the republican party, all of those people that say no to progress. [applause] what president clinton did in office, he said that i am a democrat, your republican, we will work together. that is one thing about this race. my opponent has drawn the line in the sand that says i'm over here and you're over here and i can't work with you unless you believe like i do. when it comes to the district, i will tell you that i'm going to work with anyone and everyone that will move us forward. that is my job. [applause] in know, when someone comes through the door of a congressional office and they may have a social security problem or veterans benefits problem, or maybe they want to work on a project, their problem or issue is not a republican
problem. it is not a democrat problem or a conservative problem. they are a citizen of the united states that they are a constituent of this district. you are obligated to do everything for that person regardless of what their beliefs are. i promise you that is what i am going to do. [applause] now it gives me great pleasure to introduce one of the great supporters of this campaign, really one of the pillars of this area for some many years. please join me in welcoming the first lady. [applause] >> thank you.
i am just sorry that jack is not here to see all of you here today. he would love it. [applause] president bill clinton is becoming a regulara. [laughter] [cheering] [applause] he was here less than two years ago for jack's 2008 campaign. we won that one. there is a good chance we're going to win this one. he was here in february for jack's funeral. he is back again, to make sure that mark continues jack's work. [applause] jack and bill clinton were
friends and a golfing buddies. he should hear some of their stories. i am especially pleased and proud to welcome back to the johnstown end to the 12 contrast -- congressional district, my friend, jack's friend, and your friend, president bill clinton. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you so much. . . ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
i feel at home here. i have just come from morgantown, west virginia, where i spoke of the commencement of west virginia, and i wasts home. is -- i was thinking, i always feel like i am home. it is like western arkansas, and i am grateful for you. the second reason i am here is because i truly loved jack murtha. he was my friend and my partner. [applause]
in every encounter, he always supported me, except when we played golf. [laughter] i remember one time he had a crazy plaster driver, and we were playing of the congressional country club, and we were playing a five-hole, and he said, i am going to be on it, too, and i said it is only 5 yards wide. if you miss, you will be in the water, and he was so wound up he hit the ball over the green, and was well over 60 years old. it is good to have a guy like that on your side. i thing he is one of the most important members of congress in my lifetime, and he delivered you, and he would want us all to be here to make sure the -- he did continues.
the third reason i am here is i good congressman. you expect his wife and children show up. you expect his mother to show up. i started running in 1992. my mother was the only person thought i could win. hillary and chelsea were still undecided, but his mother-in-law showed up. any guy who can get his mother- in-law to a political rally -- [applause] your votes. mother-in-law is going to be 91 in a couple weeks, and i love dearly, but i realized i knew i had arrived when i won my over, so what is this
deal about anyway. the reason this is any kind of close races is the coast -- is because things are opened air, -- up in the air, and people are disoriented. they do not know what to believe, and sometimes the wind up voting for the very thing they do not want. we have seen that lately. keep in mind, before this last inauguration, this country had already lost several million jobs, and before the financial meltdown started in september of 2008, before then, two-thirds of the american people's income was lower than when i lost -- i left office because we only had 2 million jobs after you had a 2.7 million. we did not have enough work, but
we can talk about healthcare and new legislation. they all relate to the economy, but this country works when we have a good infusion of new jobs every five years, and when it does not, we get in trouble, and the small towns in the rural part of the country get in trouble first, because there is not enough money circulating in the absence of new investments. that is what this whole deal is about, and i spent a lot of time in my current life dealing with the question most people in politics do not think about enough. most of the time i was in politics, we discuss things like what are you going to do, and how much money are you going to spend? you're going to cut taxes. if so, how much you going to there is the third question. whatever you're going to do, how do you propose to make something
happen so your good intentions change people's lives? one of the biggest assets mark critz has -- one of the biggest reasons to vote for him is when he was in congress, he had figured out the "how"question. how are you supposed to figure out these problems, there are a lot of people with good intentions, but if you do not know how to do it. if you cannot say, i do not care if you disagree. let's figure out how to do this -- then you cannot be affective a district like this. you need somebody in the how business. somebody that realizes that what they need in
washington county may be entirely different. even as small as the congressional district is, it is perverse in its economical challenges, and its economic problems, so i love what you about energy. i loved seeing those windmill's. if we could use about 25% or 30% of our energy from the wind alone, and all the people but own the land could make a killing if we organize it right. somebody needs to figure out how time doing that. the work i do now, -- i spend a lot of time doing that. the work i do now, people try to figure out how to do things faster, cheaper, and better. the government needs to get in the faster, cheaper, and better business.
i also think it is important set -- that you actually keep score, and i listened carefully to what he says. people ask me all the time, what'd you want your legacy to be? i think there are only about three things that matter if you're in public service. when you are done, all that matters is not who endorsed you, said, what the rhetoric was. all that matters is our people better off when you quit then when you started? [applause] the your children and grandchildren have a brighter future, and are they coming together or falling apart? the rest is buy from music. around does not amount to a hill of beans.
a lot of what people are feeling is pure frustration because the ground keeps moving. it is hard to know where you can plant your feet, and a lot of people want to say, i want to get off. don't you think that is what is going on? just stop the world. i want to get off. the problem is, you cannot stop people are mad and frustrated. forget about politics. think about decisions you made in your life when you were really mad. made a mistake. isn't that right? so when i was a kid, i grew up just north of louisiana, and we all grew up on cajun humor, and there was this hilarious cajun joke about this guy who walked up to his friend and said, why
do you have a dynamite in your coat pocket, and he said, ever sees me, he stops me and breaks my cigar, so i said, you're of a dynamite. you are going to blow yourself up. and he said, but i am going to blow his hand up. that is what you get. you cannot get off, and you cannot stop. we have got to make change comfortable and confident for people to live with all over america, and the only way to do good things happen. this guy will make good things happen. he knows how to do it, and he understands how to connect those people cast in washington with lies people live.
that is what you need in congress. [applause] the biggest thing you have got to do now -- there are few undecided voters here. undecided voters and the uncertain of whether they will vote are outside of here, so what you need to do now is to promise yourself that if you want somebody in the how business, and if you want someone who can deliver and all these issues as they relate to the economy -- health care, economic issues -- energy is an economic issue -- you're going figure out some way to put a carbon dioxide in the ground or change the chemical composition of it, or put it
straight into some of the plant food. they are doing that in arizona. it is great. they take the carbon dioxide before it comes from a smokestack, put it in the aisle g, and use that as biofuels, and they let out clean oxygen. there is no point in being mad or frustrated. we all need to roll up our sleeves and do it together. what you need to do -- i feel this so strongly. if you just think of every person you will pass between now and when the polls close, you're going to pass a lot of people. say something to them. tell them what is at stake.
in the end, all that matters is whether people are better off than when you started, whether if people understand the connection, and let me tell you -- this will have huge ramifications across the country. what he is saying in this campaign. i want the democrats, not just the republicans, to hear this message. i want them to hear the jobs message. i want them to hear the common sense democratic message. we all need to hear this. if you do what you can by talking to everybody you can world will hear this message. jack murtha will be thank you,
everyone's attention. first, i want to thank you for coming out on this wonderful afternoon to welcome tim burton's and senator scott brown. make some noise. [applause] the biggest thing i need you to do in welcoming these gentlemen to this stage is making as much noise and being as loud and obnoxious as you can possibly be. that is what i like to hear. let's give it one trial run. 1, 2, 3. [applause] that is . we are going to start off the right way with the pledge of allegiance, and it is my pleasure to introduce staff sergeant dan garcia of the united states air force, and he is also the chairman of the young republicans.
[applause] >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank you. >> and one other gentlemen i would like to introduce is the chairman of the firearm center against crime committee, and he is just behind me, so please give him a warm welcome as well. [applause] >> how are you doing today? i am the chairman of firearm owners against crime, and we are dedicated to preserving your
right to bear arms. we have been working hard in this area for 25 years, and i want to ask each of you a question. you come here today to celebrate a candidate, but i want you to ask yourselves what does this freedom means euan -- mean to you? think about it, because we are in a crossroads, and i ask every candidate that, and i can tell you more than a few of fun are stumped by the concept until they really think about it. we do not think about what america stands for. a militia being necessary for the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in french. what is wrong with that statement? think about where it came from, because it came from the pennsylvania constitution. the right of the citizen to bear
arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned. that is the legacy each one of view -- each one of you has to protect, because i want you to also think that until february of this year, we did not restore the right of citizens to bear arms in national parks like lexington and concord, where the british originally came to take a firearm of america. how ludicrous is that for a congress of swears an oath to the constitution? these are your rights and your freedoms. this is why i a.m. here today. jim burns is excellent on these issues, and being a businessman, he knows how to compete, and he knows what it means to make hard decisions.
that is something we need in this seat. that is something we have not had for a long time, because it is tough for an individual to stand up to the powers that been and say no, gun control is wrong. in case any of you think gun- control works, i invite you to challenge me, because america is full of cemeteries with people in it that have lived. you have been deceived about that. tim burns is not a candidate who will fall prey to that. that is why i am here today, because if any of you know me, if any of you have ever heard of me, you will know just how much i believe in the constitution of the united states. i am a marine.
my son is an army gentleman. my war with vietnam -- wqas vietnam, and i celebrate every marine that is here today. [applause] 4 tim burns, the o's is not a platitude. -- the oath is not of platitudes. it is something he believes in his heart. i promise you will be voting for a good man. we have a push button society. we push a button for our freedom. we push a button for our wars. it takes in boots on the ground, so just remember what the
founding fathers said. the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing. now it is our country. let's get to work. semper fi. [applause] >> our next speaker is someone i know you are familiar with. this gentleman is are hopeful to be next governor of pennsylvania, attorney general corporate -- corbitt. for us good afternoon. thank you very much. thank you for coming out on a great day. if you're finished, we do not want you to lose the experience. we want you to go out and work on behalf of everyone that is campaigning. we have a primary and a special election.
the one thing i always remind people, you can vote for tim burns twice, legally. it is very important we be able to do that. things have changed quite a bit from two years ago. there has been a message that has been going across the nation and across pennsylvania. i hear the same message everywhere i go, and i will tell you what that is in a second, but they have also heard it in states like virginia and new jersey, where people said the same message that you're going to say here in a moment, and as i talk to people in theory county and washington and green, everywhere all the way to philadelphia common the same
message is a very simple one. enough's spending. -- enough spending. [applause] enough taxation. enough big government. it is very simple. that is the word for the rest of this campaign. enough's. we need to tell washington and congress what? >> enough. >> we need to tell speaker pelosi what? >> what. >> we need to tell governor rendell what? ? enough. >> let the free enterprise system work. you have an opportunity on tuesday to send him burns to congress so he can give them the same message, which is? >> enough.
>> i cannot tell you how important that is. when i talked to the citizens, they are telling me we have had enough. we have to change that dynamic. we have to make them responsible. we have to reduce the taxes in pennsylvania. we have to reduce the taxes across the country, because people have had enough. it took 72 hours until may 18, and the election the entire country is watching. now you have never been in the focus as much as you are right now, because the country is looking to see whether the message that started in new jersey and virginia and then went on, when a senator from massachusetts was elected when no one thought he could been
elected, and the people said the same thing, which is what? >> enough. >> but is so important to continue the message that senator brown was able to be able to grab from the people of massachusetts and take them to washington, to send another person in this congress -- for tim burns to go and say to speaker policy-- >> enough. >> thank you for coming down. it is time for you to start working. >> thank you a lot. let's make sure to get out and vote for your next governor of pennsylvania. it is great to see you today. i welcome the ninth congressional district of pennsylvania, which shares for five counties, so i know the people of the 12th district
well, and i am very proud to be here today in support of tim. we're going to send a message to washington, d.c., send a message to nancy pelosi, the president of the united states, and tell them enough is enough. enough with the spending. in love with the taxes. enough with trying to kill jobs with a cap -- enough's with the taxes. enough with trying to kill jobs with the cap and trade bill. enough of us going around the world apologizing for being americans, apologizing for spreading freedom and democracy around the world. we are americans. we are proud of that, and we have to make sure we say that every day across the country and around the world. all of you know we have a special guest with us today, but i want to remind you, the first
big upset was in virginia. then nobody thought the republicans could win new jersey, and the shock was heard around the world in massachusetts. scott brown won the senate seat. he won the senate seat the belong to the people. we are going to send another shot around the world when we elect him burns. have to remind you, you have to vote twice on tuesday. you have to tell your friends and families. you have to vote for jim burns
in the special election and the primary election. you can vote twice on tuesday for tim burns. it may be the only time in your life you will be about to do it legally, but it is so important that knew him get elected to congress and wins the primary, because that momentum would carry him through to the november election, and that momentum is going to carry republicans threw to retake the house in washington, d.c. and said another message to nancy pelosi and president obama. remember, i cannot say this is enough. special election, a primary election, tim burton's. it is my pleasure to -- tim burns it is my pleasure to introduce the only person this election that created 400 jobs in western
pennsylvania. pennsylvania costs next congressman, tim burns -- pennsylvania's next congressman, tim burton's. >> thank you. it is fitting that we have this rally today, because it was a little over a year ago that i stood on these very sets at a tea party i helped organize. i do not know how many remember the riots, but it was pouring down rain. we had about 400 people there. i put that together because i was concerned about this country. i was concerned about the unprecedented deficits and the budget deficits, and we had an
$800 billion stimulus package, and it was not long after i spoke of the tea party, got a great response, i was of to seek out another, and another, -- i was asked to speak at another, and i was asked to run for congress. i believe this country is going to fight for its very life. i believe if we do not make major changes quickly, that my children are not going to have the same opportunities i had. i got in this race, because i knew i would not be a will to look like kids in the eye if i told them i did nothing, but i think we all have our responsibility to do what we can to turn this nation around. our forefathers gave up their lives. they gave of their fortunes to give birth to this great nation. police we can do is save it. that is what all of you are doing today.
[applause] since i got in this race nearly a year ago, things have gotten better -- have things gotten better in washington? no deficits are bigger, and washington is down the same path of out of control spending. that is why this race has now received national attention. this raises literally a referendum on the obama political agenda, and about a week from now, nancy pelosi and barack obama will be saying one of two things. they will either says, do not worry. we can get back to our liberal agenda -- scott brown was an anomaly, or a week from today, they will say, this conservative movement is for real.
[applause] we are not going to be a will to move forward, and i think america is on the wrong track. i know you think america is on the wrong track. let me ask you about this administration. using we should go around the world bowling to our enemies and apologizing -- you think we should go around the world bowling to our enemies and apologize for being alone superpower? do you think we should tell our enemies we will not use nuclear weapons? >> no. >> do you think we should let the government takeover the greatest health care system in the world? >> no. >> i did not either, but my opponent does. the passage of this health-care bullet -- bill i believe was the ultimate insult. here we have a bill that
congress did not understand, uniphase passed it anyway against the -- yet they passed it anyway against the will of the people. i believe this year we will be able to take the steps necessary to take back this country common -- country, and i believe it will start with scott brown, because i can tell you, even with all of america's problems, even with all the challenges we face, i seen great reason for hope. there is one thing barack obama has done very well. he has managed to mobilize millions of americans from all over the country. he has got them to get into the streets, to stand up to washington and tell the government we are not going to take it anymore.
[applause] now it really comes down to, can i get elected? the experts are asking, can i get elected. can a long-shot candidate who drives a pickup truck, running in a district with a 2-1 registration disadvantage, running for a seat that has been long held by an entrenched incumbent of the other party for over three decades, can i win this seat? >> no. >> the question is, can a long- shot candidate who drives a pickup truck win an election in the district has a three-one disadvantage, run for a seat that was long held by an entrenched incumbent of the
opposite party for over three decades? i have news for barack obama and nancy pelosi. yes, we can. [applause] it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you the man who started it all and the man who proved no seed is safe -- senator scott brown. >> thank you very much. it is great to see you all. it is great to be back in washington. you know what the difference is between this washington and the one i left this morning? the people here are sick and tired of the overspending, the over taxation, the out of control deficit spending, and in washington they keep training money.
people here care about how their kids and their grandkids are going to repay the debt june china and for the other countries that are basically financing what we like to do. how are we going to deal with terrorists? do we treat them as criminals? the reason i came is because there are a lot of similarities. somebody who is an outsider who is not the holder into special interest and will be an independent voter, and then the other washington -- somebody who when i need to get something done in a bipartisan way, to look out for the interest not only in massachusetts but for the interest of the entire
country, i want to make sure i have someone i can trust who is not going to be beholden to special interest, not the other washington. now i can tell you, the out of control spending israel. the lack of accountability for looking out for the things that are so important to each and everyone of you israel, and you have a real chance right now -- every one of you, and you have -- one of you is real, and we have a chance to say right now, we have had enough, and this is not just about republicans. this is about good people, whether they are democrats, independents, independents come -- republicans who are tired of
business as usual, the printing of money, the way they are taking over industries, the way they are not listening to the things we care so deeply about. imagine being in a business, having a nice life, and saying, i am going to redirect my life. i am going to focus on trying to make a difference, so almost 15 years ago when i first got into public service, i was upset about a school issue in my town, and i decided to do something about it because my wife was tired of listening to me complain, so i did, and i won, and i will continue to fight every day, as i know tim will. i will wrap it up because i want to come down and meet each of you, but i want to tell you if a couple stings. you need to be a truth squad. you need to call your friends,
your grandkids, your kids, your moms, dads, cousins, uncles, aunts, everyone you know and have them call 10 or 15 people. get them out to vote. you can fight back on facebook, switcher, -- twitter, every multimedia site you can get on. tell them how important it is to send a message that you are tired, and you want some balance back in washington, and you have had enough. you need to get down to the headquarters and make phone calls. do not take any vote for granted. if they are in the hospital, go get them. his better home for college now, i know they are home.
my daughter is home, looking for money, so they are home. let them know what it is like to be part of the process. i want to thank you for coming. i want to congratulate him for the great race he is running. i am looking forward to going to the other side of the road in for the swearing in. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ ["right now" plays]
learn more about her in c-span's latest vote. -- book. available now in hardcover and also as an ebook. >> iraqi officials sunday confirmed a narrow victory for the former prime minister in the recent parliamentary elections. next, a panel discussion. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning everyone. >> i am delighted to welcome you for a discussion on the future of u.s.-iraq relations. our purpose is to discuss the findings and present a new report i report that i wrote on
the future of u.s. iraq relations and secondly is to brief you all and to share impressions of a recent trip to iraq where we disseminated the report and had many many conversations with very diverse iraqi's. i was delighted to be accompanied on the trip by charles dunne who s one of our discussions this morning, and elena mcgovern who has been a research associate on this project in his country but did quite a lot to the preparation of the study. but when we get to the discussion phase, we will-- we are also honored to have manal omar who runthe institute of peace programs in iraq and will bring the perspective of civil society, what is going on in both u.s. engagement with civil society and more broadly the civil society picture in iraq. i would like to think of the u.s. institute of peace which funded the second phase of this project and allow this to translate our report into
kurdish and arabic into travel to iraq to disseminate it and discuss it with diverse iraqi's, both official and unofficial iraqi's, to get their views on how see the future of the relationship with the united states. the project, to think about the future, was really premised the motion that we are all consumed with the security situation in iraq and worry a lot about how the transition to a smaller amerin footprint in iraq will go, but my goal was to get beyond that security conversation and to try to talk a little bit more about how does one create a larger conversation, a wider angle lens view of where our mutual interests are in a long-term relationship. what would a more civilian dominant, long-term relationship between the united states and iraq look like and what are the interests of both parties in getting there? some of the key points from the stimson reports are that thy
transition in u.s.-iraq relations that i'm writing about really began at the end of the bush administration. it was in december 28 that the bush administration and the iraqi government of nouri al-maliki it negotiated to agreements. the iraqis negotiated extremely effectively on their own behalf are in agreement that is not a sofa, status of forces agreement that an agreement that governs the withdrawal of american troops from iraq but equally importantly, they sign something called a strategic framework agreement which really does have the vision for the long-term u.s.-iraq relationship and identifies a number of areas for cooperation between our two societies and our two governments. so, i would like to use the strategic remark agreement as the kind of fra or the paradigm to think about what will the relationship look like after forces withdraw. at even a discussion of this transition has created some and balances and uncertainties that affect iraqi confidence in u.s.
staying pwer and commitment. it is hard to convince iraqis that the largest embassy in the world is a substitute for 100,000 or more american troops. so even with the very clearly developed rhetoric and hard thinking on the policy side about what our long-term relationship will look like, we need to bear in mind that for the iraqi's, the discussion of the departure of the american troops is something that create some anxiety and uncertainty for them. another premise of my report was that i don't think the united states in iraq are natural allies. i don't think that we should overstate where this relationship can go in terms of both illegal and the political parameters of it. but i do think that iraq is intrinsically an important country. the united states now has a larger stake in iraq than it has ever had before and there is the prospect for mutually beneficial
productive relationships, but it will be different and it won't please everyone. now i do see opportunities for cooperation, particularly strong in education, agriculture, water and food scurity, health, science and technology, and certainly energy. i think l of these are arenas inhich iraq is possibly a world-class player is not just a regional powerhouse, and these are areas in which the united states can contribute to iraq's developing both stable presence and a growing future inthese fields. but it does remind us, when we think about the civilian relationship, that we have to pause now and think who are the stakeholders and who cares about the relationship over th long-term? i have worried that the way hollywood has discovered iraq, the image of iq in the popular culture in the united states is very dark,. iraq is a scary and dangerous place.
american who come back from iraq are in many cases physically, psychologically, spiritually wanted. they didn't necessarily meet iraqi's that they like, so we have a kind of structural problem of how to persuade americans that after the wr is over, is there a piece that we care about? is there an engagement in iraq's future that is meaningful to a wider segment of americans beyond the national security community. so this is something i do worry about and i worry on the iraqi side as well who will be the advocates of a strong u.s.-ira relationship? were sure the kurds all volunteer. they would love to be the advocates of a strong u.s.-iraq relationship but on the arab side, do people really believe the united states is in for the long-haul and that this will be beneficial to them? but in addition, i talk about in the report that the long-term sustainability of the u.s. iraq relationship gets to these questions of thresholds. the united states engages most
countries in the world and at some level at bilateral cooperation, but for the u.s. and iraq it has to be bigger than that list of bilateral areas of mutual interest that i mentioned. and it does get to the question of what is iraq's capacity to be an important player in the region and in a way that is at least minimally compatible with america's role in the region. so we do get to this, whether we can get to the level of rategic partnership between the united states and iraq wi depend on the course of iraqi politics and policies and decisions that quite frankly the iraqi's have not yet made themselves. as know we don't have an iraqi. we are waiting for a new iraqi government. we don't know who will speak for iraq's foreign-policy. we don't know ow the national security policy will evolve in the coming years. will ir want to be a strategic partner of the united states in the region? so it will depend on how things
shake ot in iraq's relations with its key neighbors, saudi arabia, turkey, iran and what the domestic market will bear, how iraqi's with this sort of segmented political culture that is emerging, how the iraqis will see their own national interest and whether associating with the united states is a net positive or not for them. in the end, i see iraq as a very important bridge and almost vanguard country. iraq is now in touch with this multiculturalism. this is not just your maitream sunni-arab country but this is a country of ethnic and historic diversity it is obviously in the cradle of civilization that goes back long before the history of islam. it is not just a-- country. it has more historical strands do at the map. and, we also see that iraq has shifted more by default than by design to engaging more with the
non-arab countries of the regio iraq's foreign-policy is now more strongly tethered to i ran into turkey than it is to the arab world and this is something that some arab iraqis haven't yet fully acknowledged or come to terms with. it is not necessarily a permanent condition that it is a feature of how aq relates internationally today. the last issue is that iraq h every promise of becoming an evenmore important player on the energy seen. we certainly heard a lot of iraqi's totally swept away by the notion that the oil reserves are as large as saudi arabia's, that they will surpass iran as an energy exporter and producer sometie soon, so i came away and i will get to this in a minute t thinking that one of the things the united states will be accommodating or adjusting to is an iraq whose ambition will not necessaly be as it was under saddam hussein,
to be the sort of military superpower of the middle east region but iraq could turn out to be a pure energy great power with certainly more important than the international scene and the international economy. i finish my report with the belief that a strategic partnership between the united states in iraq is possible. it depends on choices the iraqis will have to make themselves but it is my view and somewhat validated by the trip to iraq at pretty much across the spectrum of the iraqi educated classes, some of whom are in the political elite now and some of whom are not, there is a belief that in association with the united states is a net positive for iraq. this is partly because of their own self-image as a modern secular society, but even for those whose vision of iraq is not necessarily modernist or secular, there is a belief that an association with the united states gives iraq more prestige
and power in the international system. so i see srategically that a strategic partnership with iraq is possible but it hasn't yet happened and there is a lot of work to be one. let me turn out to some of the impressions that charles and elena and i got an archer to iraq and ive divided into four topics and i will go fairly quickly through these. the iraqis we met within the first 10 days of may, u.s.-iraq relations, the kurdish arab problem which for many americans has, people in the policy community has worried that the next crisis in iraq is kurdish arab tension rather than sunni-shia tension. what were our perceptions of institution building and national reconciliation inside iraq, and how does iraq fit into the region and what are some of the regional dynamics? so for us, we again, my view was that overall iraqi said we met with want a relationship with the united states. the same people are very itical of things that they
think we haven't done well. they have their small grievances about choices the united states made. they have opinions aout the u.s. embassy, buti virtually never heard iraqi say we wish you would just go away, take your embassy with you and we will live our own lives independently of you. to the contrary, what we heard is a deep desire for relationships, but a lot of uncertainty and stress i would say on how to calibrate what that relationship should be. there is a deep anxiety about the withdrawal of u.s. forces often couched in terms of a vacuum that will suddenly appear in the summer of 22011, when iraqi's at various security checkpoints around the country-- i am being a little facetious here-- but that iraqi's would somehow suddenly not be ae to man those check wants knowing that american forces are not backing them p.
i was a bit startled and surprised at how often iraqi people, even those in the security community, that were not able to talk about the managed transition, and i would say to them that the timeline was developed on the basis of iraqi and american calculations of how much time it would take to get various iraqi units up to a certain threshold of capability, etc. and this timeline was not just an obama campaign promise, but it was something that had actually been developed in the 2008 with american and iraqi security officials. but even knowing that, iraqi seem to have a deep anxiety that the american presence is somehow very important to iraqi's. behaving in a professional way towards each other, beyond their community and for various kinds of dispute resolutions that the u.s. role is very important to them. on the civilian side, we were
surprised that iraqi's seem to have very little knowledge about the extent and the range of u.s. engagement and civilian activities in iraq. no everybody gets on the usip-- excuse me, the aig or u.s. embassy web site, communicate quite a lot on their own activities to the extent that they can, but we found many iraqi's were not deeply familiar with those activities. this was in part because we were meeting with iraqi's that were not afliated with the united states. we had meetings organized by iraqi ngo's and by individual iraqi's, who brought to us people who perhaps are not as much plug-in to some of the very important and in my view very honorable activities that are going on with the iraqi civil society. i was surpriseto hear that many of the views of independent iraqis, journalists, academics a lot of suspicion about civil
society, a belief that their own civil society has been corrupted by international involvement, so it was not a one-dimensional story. it was a fairly complicated one. iraqis were also speculating the united states should be more involved in a government formation process, which was amusing to hear because i think the minute we do engage, there is immediately a cry that we are interfering in iraqi politics, so i tried to show them the role the the election process would be free and fair, and more recently, vice president biden was the point person on this question, the invalidation of some of the candidates, but there seems to be a bit of a struggle to determine what the right amount of american involvement is, when is it too
little and too much? i did feel that many iraqis we spoke with wanted the united states to do more to prevent undemocratic power plays that are clearly so -- still going on. my bumper sticker would be that the sunnis think we should be doing more to prevent the shia from manipulating them, but they all think somehow the u.s. president mitigates the problems and helps prevent further polarization. let me turn to kurdish-arab relations. . orried that this is he new fault line in iraqi society, that this is something that could lead to violence and the further deterioration of the security in the country but we found very few people talking about it in those terms. there is political friction, but we were reassured time and again that they will resolve their
disputes in political means and that the kurds in particular don't see this as something that resorting to military force would be appropriate or desirable. the kurds told us their patience is wearing thin and why hasn't there have been a referendum on kirkuk and why aren't you doing more on the disput internal border? but they kept insisting that this was not something that would meet the threshold of the violence. it is true that certainly in kirkuk, individuals and people name names, of who are the kind of elliptical hotheads in these different communities in kirkuk, that there could be violence among those people but this would not be something that was purposeful at the level of the national decision or a community decision. we did find however that kurds and arabs have quite different views of iraq's foreign policy, for what it should be and where iraq could evolve to in terms of its regional role.
i thought the kurds were more openly pro-american. they warned us that the arabs are not necessarily the right partner for the united states. please be careful. the arabs don't trust you. this is not going to be a long-term success story. the kurds alsocomplained that we spend so much time trying to win over our enemies, the sons of iraq, trying to integrate the sunni arabs that have been fighting us into mainstream politics in iraq that we are neglecting our friends. why aren't we distributing our resources more evenly between the parts of iraq that are friendly to us, compared to the parts of iraq that are still in play or still competing. the kurds would also like to see a foreign policy that is more balanced among, between the arabs in the non-arab power centers of the middle east of the kurds, and this is one of themost interesting success stories in my mind in the last
few decades in iraq, the kurdish turkish relationship is really thriving and is robust and the kurds now interestingly see that a foreign policy for iraq that is oriented to turkey, iran and even israel would be a smart foreign policy and they do not want to see a foreign policy that is tethered, exclusively or in a very controlled way, to the arab world along. let me just say a few words about institution building and reconciliation. we were both excited-- we were quite happy to be in iraq when the postelection maneuvering was in full swing. we were at the rashid hotel in baghdad and witness the vote counting, the corridors were full of smoking and tea drinking iraqi's on their breaks from the vote counting. and we met with president barzani minutes after he finished the negotiations with the kurdish parties on, for kurdish parties are going going
to negotiate together on the formation of the new government, and diplomats were reporting to us that there was a lot of progress in finishing the debaathification process and we have seen since we returned, that indeed they do judicial system has determined that this dispute over disqualifying some andidates, it will not affect the final numbers of the election results. so the coalition led by a lead out while we will stillave the largest number of seats, even though he made-- they may not ha enough to form a government. the most frequently heard scenario was that the new government would be formed by the two shia parties. without maliki as prime minister possibly. the vice president is the name that seem to enjoy a fairly wide support as a credible alternative candidate to be prime minister. what we heard from some and this is quite, was that the new worry
was that this grand shia coalition, when there were problems that needed to be solved, would go to najaf for a clerical dispute resolution mechanism, so that some people fear thathat may emerge as the next iraqi government is the kind of creeping iranian visitation of iraqi politics, a sort of iraqi version. other iraqi's were adamant, this is not a role of marsha. this was an exaggerated fear and neither maliki or other shia politicians have any intention of giving up this sort of constitutional authority that they havein favor of a clerical dispute resolution mechanism. but this was a fascinating conversation to hear. the other thing we heard is that the presidency, which in the
next round becomes a more symbolic presidency and is a single person elected by the parliament, no longer a representing all three communities, that iraqi, if not asked to form the next government, it is not succeeded in forming the next government could make a bid for the psidency so we might see a sunni president and then a shia dominated government in what we heard from the kurds was that they very much want to be part of the government. they will join some way or another. we were told that for the first time, mathematically the kurds are not required to form a government so here are the kurds who are currently calculated to be about 17% of the population, finding that for them to continue to play the role they play they are going to have to join the government even though they are not a kingmaker anymore or a key player. i was left with the impression that there are some long-term
structural issues for iraq. every election the parties reconsider and reform. we talked openly about whether this was becoming more an israeli style democracy rather than a stable two-party system. the israeli style of the sense that sometimes the minor coalition partner, who cares very strongly about one issue, can have them almost veto power over the party with the plurality or the largest, the largest number of votes. so there is a lot of concern that there is a structural weakness being embedded in iraqi politics with this lots and lots of new prties forming, re-congregating, people shopping between one party and another. it is not yet settle into a stable two or more party system we also thought that a lot of work remains to be done in building trust among the parties post-sectarian political behavior and implementing legislation on key constitutional issues. i realize that in washington, we
a little bit indulged in a hope or a belief that the 2010 elections reflected the beginning of post-sectarian behavior. we knew that the state of law parties led by prime minister maliki considers itself to be broad, inclusive, not single sectarian party. similarly the iraq formation led by a shia but including many prominent sunnis. so we indulged a little bit in a belief that this election was different. being in iraq and having many conversations with iraqi's, my confidence about that has slipped ait and i see it now is that people still are voting overwhelmingly within their sectarian community and these parties are a noble effort to get the-- beyond that but in reality it is not quite working that way yet. one has to acknowledge that the security infrastructure,
particularly in baghdad but after all baghdad is a third of the country in terms of population, the security infrastructure has had a negative impact on all of these activities. of tryingto build trust, trying to build institutions, getting post-sectarian behaviors that the security environment needs those developments. it is hard for people people to meet in mixed groups. it is hard for people to circulate within their cities and between regions. and, the spikes in violence such as occurr on the day we left iraq, make it hard even for iraqi officials who asserted that they would start to remove these concrete harriers throughout baghdad, they then face powerful distant-- disincentives to dismantling the security infrastructure that divides baghdad and very sad ways. i was also's-- because we spent time in the north as well as in baghdad you feel strongly the economic and even social pow
in the country is being redistributed. that the investments, the improved roads, the shopping malls are all in the north and arabs come to the north, because it is a place wher you can move around more easily. there are different sets of energy and dynamism in the north. baghdad, kirkuk, these are cities that are crumbling. there is no construction. the is no capacity to invest in new infrastructure and very little reconstruction. the last thoughts on iraq and the regional dynamics, virtually all iraqis blame their neighbors for doing something bad to good. iran is the mother of all meddlers, turkey's engagement is seen as more positive and a balance to iran. we were told that turkey wa the power behind the formation of iraqi, and that when the coalition, which is the suni coalition headed by a shia,
secular shiite, allawi, former prime minister, then when it was on the verge of fragmenting it was the turks who kept it together. whether this is true or not, people saw turkey as both protecting turkish interest, but also being the surrogate or the substitute for sunni-arab influence in iraq and that this was orchestrated, that basically arab states as the turks to play this role because they know their own credibility and standing in the country is lower. egypt was singled ou by the way for praise as the only major arab country that is currently back in the swing of things and having a more normal relationship with iraq. i was left with one strong impression between iraq and saudi arabia, based in large measure on sectarian friction but even more on iraq's potential as an oil exporting peer of the kingdom. the iraqi's, despite their
anxieties about eating abandoned by the united states united states and the lingering of sick terry and tensions that remain are ambitious and increasingly optimistic about their potentials to play a very important regional role in possibly the five to 10 year timeframe, and they see their role as a regional energy powers the driver of this optimism. iraq will, under current projections, bypass iran as the number two producer in the region, possibly in two to three years, and could could come as it climbs up to six, eight or more million barrels a day, it has the promise to be a very important player in the international energy market and therefore the international economy. so last thoughts, iraqi's are ambitious, they are proud of their potential to build a modern state. many expresse gratitude to the united states, but the societal and political frictions are present everywhere. iraqi's were not involved in the
official u.s.-iraq relationship are quick to find fault in u.s. actions and choices. security conditions so far has been the glue in u.s.-iraq relations and has forged deep ties and bonds betweenilitary and security actors. but security is also prevented in our-- more normal relationship for whih security can flourish. at this point i'm going to turn the mic over to charlesdunne who will give us his thoughts in particular on the security issues. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much ellen. i would like to associate myself with ellen's remarks which i think were a terrific summary of what we found in iraq. and kind of an overview of the u.s. iraqi dynamic, which is increasingly interesting in my own view. i would also like to stress the
importance of the multi-passage relationship as we go forward. in a numbe of areas. not only security, which i will talk about a little bit, but you know agriculture, science, technology, finance, all of these things that are going to be key to tablishing a broad-based dynamic relationship between the u.s. and iraq. but my own view is that the moment security, and the future of the security relationship. it is a major preoccupation of the iraqi's. government formation is critical, and this is what everybody is thinking in iraq but they are also thinking about where we go from here with the united states. and this issue is deeply related to the general insecurity in iraq that we found i think about u.s. policy after this withdrawal and knock us, and en more so aft the end of
2011, when all u.s. forces are due to be out of iraq by agreement from the iraqi government. and in fact, there is a question about what exactly the united states want from iraq. what do we want from iraq, and this is a question we were literally asked by some of the large meetings that were held for us with educators, civil society people, journalists and so on in baghdad. i think the core of this anxiety is something ellen has touched on, but it is the fear of what comes after the unid states. we found both kurds and arabs are deeply worried about tis and especially the culture in terms of, we are going to be left exposed to the administrations, the iranians into the lesser extent the saudi's, after you leave. now the u.s. military and u.s. diplomats don't view it this
way. i was told by u.s. miliry people and in senior positions, that they view the 2011 withdrawal as essentially a transition. i they didn't want to think of as an in-state. they want to think of it is a transition from one form of american involvement to another. diplomats talk about it in terms of the steps in the normal relationship. we want a relationship with iraq and between iraq and the united states that is like our relationships with every other country in the region. iraqi's don't seem to see it that way. they seem to see it in terms of a drastic lessening of u.s. involvement, and in essence, they seem to perceive it as throwing iraq into the wild and seeing if they can survive on its own. and to compound this, there are also deep fears in iraq about how the iraqi forces are going to be able to handle this transition. they have done very well so far,
as we have seen in the way that they have handled the various elections. but iraqi's themselves seem to fear that this is not going to go well, once the united states pulls back. in some ways these fears are misplaced. i had talks with u.s. military ficials and diplomats while we were there, and therere fairly advanced plans to build up the iraqi security forces. for example the first tranche of f-16's for the iraqi air force is on the way, about eight of them. the united states has plans to provide grip ring patrol boats, helicopters and other things the iraqs can control and their own oil platforms at the northern neck of the gulf. the u.s. has plans to establish an office of security cooperation which is going to be very heavily staffed and will have the mission of completing the training and equipping mission for the iraqi forces.
in addition, the united states seems to feel that iraq should somehow be incorporated into this emerging security framework in the gulf, and i am not sure that those plans are very far advanced, but this is clearly in the minds of the administration and the military. so, while we have a strategic framework agreement that talks about a lot of things having to do with u.s.-iraq lations and a lot of other fields, we are getting some place with the future of the secity relationship but i don't in fact feel that this is very far danced in terms of u.s. strategic thinking. obviously, allen noted the probl with all of this is, what is the next government going to be, and this is very much in the minds of iraqi's an u.s. policymakers. first of all, we don't know the
formation, who is going to form the next government. it is very difficult to decide what our future security relationship is going to be in both the u.s. and the iraqi officials have been reluctant to make any kind of decisions on this, because they don't want it to become a hot potato, which coul in effect change the nature of government formation and of course it is also very difficult to decide whether or gretchen is going to be when we don't know whether we are going to have a technocrat like a lovely running the next-- or influence behind scenes by somebody like muqtada al-sadr. the other.ellen alluded to is that iraq is still very much focused on its internal political problems and yet to lift its gaze from those problems to decide what we think is going to be a regional role, and what they think their international role is going to be, and that i think will come
to a certain extent of the next government but we are simply not there yet. however, i think there is still a certain lack of leadership in washington devoted to figuring out how we want this relationship to go, and how we want the leverage to-- to leverage the relationship to leverage stability in the persian gulf. we seem to have been focused on the august withdrawal which by the ways a self-imposed withdrawal and does not have anything to do with the agreements already reached with the iraqi government, and we are also focused on final pullout at 2011. this seems to me to be dominating strategic thinking of the united states, and has become in effect a goal in itself. both iraqis and the united states seem to agree that we will need a security arrangement after 2011, which will provide for probably substantial u.s. forces in that country for various missions, forhe
foreseeable future. but there is very much an-- a lack of interest in the united states or a lack of desire by the united states to actually broach this topic with the iraqi government at this point. if you talk to u.s. military officials they will tell you, we have to wait until we get a specific group pressrom the iraqi government to even broach this topic. the other point i would like to make is that w don't have a lot of time when we are looking into this issue. we have got a lot of military issues and we have a lot of specific military programs that are beginning to wind down, because we don't have these by the iraqi government. they will bdifficult to wind up again at those sites should decide that a certain point that
we want to renew this military relationship and extend it beyond 2011. the other point i would like to make is that iraqis ar beginning to lose a little bit of confidence in our commitment to their future, and this tends to reinforce the self-defeating strategies that we have seen on relying on ethnic and religious solidarity to avoid compromise and making the big political deals. we have ari-- always said the iraqi's need to make in order to secure their political fure. my view and what we need to do now is move to rebuild confidence. we need to assure iraqi says-- united states has a commitment to their future. are all of the funds we have discussed in this report with certainty on the security front because as ellen mentioned, the security commitment from the united states to iraq is critical really for building
commitment to pitical compromise and organizing themselves forhe future. it is also critical to cementing the security gains in the political gains we have seen in thelast seven years. if we can do ts, i think this is going to be the key to stability and democratic advancement in the northern persian gulf. and with that, i will turn it over to manal. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i want to take a moment to thank ellen and the stimson center for including me on this panel. specially so fresh after your trip. what i want to do was actually the specifically into civil society and discuss the civil society. taking it back to three phases. first is before 2003, with civil society in iraq with like or
didn't look like. after 2003 and more recently, what the idea in the forecast versus civil society would be once we begin to withdraw. the reason why wanted to talk about civil society before 2003 was that when a lot of organizations hit the ground in iraq there was an assumption that civil society simply did not exist in iraq. however there have been some form of civil society particularly when you look at the professional associations. for example the lawyers association, the engineering association. there was a very active women's union, so there was some element of civil socie. of course we know that was heavily controlled by the baathist regime and people were penalized through what i would term institutionalize poverty and ghettoization by not eating active within the baathist o within the civil societies that existed. the reason why bring that up is, jumping towards when we started in 2003, there was an important element of deconstructing what treaties existed before we can begin to construct a new image of civil society.
because the initial step had been skipped, what happened was there was almost a mushrooming instantly of organizations, because the automatic assumption was civil society equals ngo. the university professors, professional association started to try, rather than building on the organization of experience they had within their professions or within their own universities, began to transform what mirrored their image of the civil society and which again took the form of ngo's. within one month of a registration process in iraq in 2003 you had 2000 entries registered and again just trying to formulate this type of construction, which was an organization rather than looking down at the grassroots portion. a huge amount of those organizations have started forming were from the elite classes and some of them were from expat. there weren't large number of organations on the grassroots communities that were not being incorporated within the new image of civil society.
a result there was a sufficient, in terms of isivil society part of the political party. those were some of the questions that began to emerge. there became a term that was very common by 2005 which was the briefcase ngo which was an individual with a briefcase uld walk around and claim, on behalf of their communities all across iraq, rather than really being able to have ties with some type of constituency. as ellen pointed ut, a lot of people blame that on the international community. there were such a desperation to find local counterparts that these briefcase ngo's in the eyes of the iraqi communities were seen as being the ones to be talking on half of the iraqi's as a whole rather than going dow to the constituents. the other challenge ashley was the security becaman issue particularly in 2004. in almost any other context, there is intricate monitoring and evaluation that takes place when society begins to emerge particularly from international communities in their local partners and mainly amongst the donner siety.
again that was one of the steps due to security which had to be skipped because monitoring evaluations were on the ground. rumors were abound and organizations to read close organization to happen to have a camera in their briefcase to take pictures of events that never really happened and then send it to the donor and again this whole suspicion and the question began to emerge in terms of who really represents us in terms of the grassroots, who is really speaking about the problems that are being faced in terms of electricity and it it was consistent. from 2003and how my trip last week where people are saying electricity, security and livelihood, the same issues over the last seven years and a question of who is really representing that to the decision-makers both in terms of international governments come in terms of donors come in terms of the iraqi government iself there was a sense that there was a disconnect. that said, there were groups that organize. one of the best success stories
from civil society is looking at the university professors. upon hearing about human rights am being introduced to human rights, there was a huge push from university professors to advocate during the drafting of the constitution that's human rights had to be taught to university students, and that would actually pass in the constitution and it is now required by every college udent to take a yeaof human rights. similarly, and what i wanted to do to exemplify the before 2003, was give you a case study of women's organizations. women as early as the 1900 were organized in iraq. women in iraq are known throughout thregion to be among the leading groups in terms of representing women's rights and most known as the 1958 personal status law which deals with inheritance, divorce and marriage which in iraq was passed in the late 50s, considered land breaking in terms of legal status for women. at the same time iraqi women have the right to vote from 1980 again you are saying it was kind of an elite term, women's groups
who were able to unite them because of their affiliation with the baathist regime were able to make change for women across the country. one of the questions that happened after 2003 was, as we no, sanctions began to be introduced, women's rights began to erode. by the time people started to explore women's issues there was a huge gap in legal ights for women in iraq and what was being implemented. again another question of civil society was how did that happen to turn around so easily? it became very clear to the women's organization that would be given could be taken away. as a result wen began to really lobby for more grassroots organizations to be involved on women's issues. in 2004, in early 2004, when the first resolution was introduced, a strict monolithic interpretation of islamic law into the constitution, this was under the idc in the interim government council, women were the first groups to protest in
iraq through the streets in baghdad and all across, gather together saying we don't want this law in terms of, at that time the transitional administrative law. and they were able to repeal it. so you were able to see women who were able to come together and actually make a change in terms of what was being proposed after 2003. now that they are looking in terms of where the u.s. will go, there is a think almost a love-hate relationship in terms of what the u.s. had played in terms of civil society in iraq. the same individual from the same organization will say almost an exact same breath that there is a fear of the u.s. pulling out, but at the same time, they will say something like as soon as the u.s. leave the iraqi government will be able to whip the country and shave. there is almost, within the same statement a contradiction of terms and a feeling that, we want them to go but at the same
time there is a strong fear what could happen, but there is also this acknowledgment that iraq is one of the few countries that has resources and human capacity and could probably rebuild itself quite quickly if it was given the opportunity so there is almost like a competing desire for what the future could look like. at the same time civil society are afraid that donors will leave. they have had great relationhips in terms of international funding that but there's also an excitement in terms of the filtering process that will happen. a lot of ngo's will say now we know who is really committed to civil society. once funding is less, obviously there will be a stronger compition for who will apply. at the same time is likely the private sector will, so the doctors and engineers who form ngo's willprobably dissolve and they will go back to the private sector and what people are hoping will emerge as the people who are dedicated to human rights and to issues that civil society can focus on. among the isses that have arisennd have been labeled as
a priority of our civic education. a lot of ngo's are calling for a very unified curriculum or a discussion. one of the biggest complaints from organizations haseen the current ministry of education and curriculum that is taught in schools which a lot of people expressed as highly sectarian. so there is another golf organization to in terms of influencing the ministries in terms of what type of curriculum will be taught in universities. youth and women has emerged as priorities. a lot of activities are being focused on, bringing out using terms of nt only interacting on the political level but in terms of what they can contribute to their communities, leadership skills building and proactive involvement so that they aren't recruited by other people who might not have the country's best intentions in mind. also a huge influx of the concept of reconciliation and conflict resolution which is demonstrated on the university level, the american university and currently baghdad university talking about departments that
are dedicated to conflict resolution and peace-building. going back to the case studies of women's issues, one of the things that tended to really weaken the women's issues in terms of what will be forecasted in the future is this trend of polarization, fleming-- divided towards a more secular approach where the other half of the women are going towards a more islamic throat in defending women's rights. in 2007 women were probably stronger as a union, whereas now you have seen these two groups split and polarized than it is one of the challenges we are seeing in civil society is that there is the tendency of polarization and is part of a larger issue which comes out of why education is a priority, terms of what is the national identity of iraq. those are just kind of glimpses into civil society in some of the challenges that are being forecasted, and i guess i will leave the rest for questions.
[applause] >> thank you. i would like to open the floor now for questions and comments. we have got a lot of iraq experience in this room. charlie reese, many people that is spent a lot of time since 2003 so i welcome your own observations as well as any questions you y want to post to any of the three of us. >> y. name is rach, and i have two very different questions one for ellen and one for you. i was intrigued by your comments ellen on, i hink you said the kurdish region was interested in developing a foreign-policy with a nun arab region, and you
mentioned turkey, iran and israel. so i was wondering how to reconcile iran and israel? ow do they envision having a foreign-policy towards both of those countries, and what kind of complex--. >> then for you charles, just to clarify are you advocating bad the u.s. should bring up on its own without waiting for the iraqi government the issue of the security, security presence of the u.s. in iraq now, before the completion of the next iraqi government is completed, and if so, who in on which level would that take place? >> why don't i go first. first of all, the kurds don't really have the luxury of having
an independent foreign-policy. they are still constitutionally part of the iraqi state, but it isuite striking to see how much the capital of big kurdish regiol governme does have international relationships. they don't call at foreign-policy but they have international relations. a lot of international ngo's are headquartered in erbil. there up to 70 and consulates although it was explained to us that of th17, not all of them are formal embassy like, staffed by embassies. some are trade missions, some are honorary councils, but while we were there the turks opened officially their consulate, which was quite dramatic development, given that for many many years the turkish government was deeply ambivalent about whether to recognize the kurdish regional government as a separate entity. ..
they would like to see the iraqi state be very friendly and arab world institutions, but not exclusively. they are also physically most proximate to turkey and iran, so they feel that presence. i feel their embrace of turkey and their preferred commercial partner, a lot of construction in northern iraq is being done by turkish companies, that is their way of balancing. i think the kurds to distinguish themselves from arabs on their comfort level on how much are ronnie and presence and
participation -- iranian presence and participation that they want. iraq has said it -- has an extremely weak banking system and they need to work on that. n that. but short enough, the government of baghdad is allowing the four men who banks to set up branches so the bank wants to come and the turkish bank is coming soon etc. in the north they're worried about on iranian financing and moey laundering and things like that so there is sometimes they are trying to manage the external relatioships in ways that are legally consistent with what is being done in baghdad that has a little bit of a krg so these are delicate things. in terms of israelite don't want to overstate this. it is simply the kurds see themselves as in a way a non-arab community of the middle
east that sees some kind of strategic interest in having the middle east be recognized as more than just the arab world so that in principle they would have no objection to having good relations with all of the countries of the middle east. beyond but obviously they will divert, baghdad will set the parameters of what countries are officially recognized and not so that is still a baghdad function >> let me deal ith your queson relatively briefly which was am i advocating the u.s. should bring up the future of the security relationship before we have a government formed i don't think that would necessarily be useful but i don't think that my an impression talking to the various u.s. officials and iraqi as well is i don't believe that the thinking on this is a very
far advanced and i think it should be. i believe the u.s. government should have plans in hand to deal with the evin schiraldi that will come up sooner rather than leader and as i said in my remarks there are lots of military programs that are going to begin winding down and so on and we need to have an idea how to approach this topic well in advance of the final pullout day of 2011 so that we can have a certain amount of continuity in the security relationship and be prepared to expand that. when i think both iraq and the united states will agree that's necessary. i can stand as a political hot potato right now mple it doesn't serve anyone's interest to bring this up in the middle of the process but certainly after that is done that's when i think the topic should be
broached. >> [inaudible] to questions ratg to that first of all with respect to one aspect of the security relationship that is one of the decision to transfer the state department and the very nature of funding for the congress to fund that because it happens to the confirmations of the military operations of the nature because [inaudible] the overhead. so i think what you are really asking for is more fault about how the military part of the security and its relationship with the organized more than our interests are and what it is weeding the iraqis want from
ts to fashion. related to that the question is did all of you have a view as to what resources in the continued u.s. strategic relationship with the iraqis should require. how much economic assistanceif any to a country that is increasing is loyal and if ny how and why and then similarly on the security system side the administration asked for $2 billion for 2012 as a last deposit in the use of funds for building iraqi military capabilities. is that a good idea in your judgment thwacks should be spread out, should be less, more and what role does official u.s. resources play in creating this secured relationship?
>> i think in terms of the police training. we have a major role to play here. i really think that the focus among on iraqis is what is we to be the future of the security relationship at large i think that is more focused on genuine military assets were. we had the opportunity to meet with of the deputy chief, the armed forces who was concerned in my view about what we are going to be doing to assist them in building all aspects of their military including the air force but also including the army and so on and we heard this from
other iraqis, too, about what are we going to be doing in terms of helping to assist, what kind of equipment are we going to leave them, wha kind of things are we going to be doing to build up their capabilities much more generally. in resource in this whole thing by think if -- i think the iraqi is themselves are going to be in a position to provide a lot of the resources for this and i think where the u.s. congress will be looking at as well. there will be an ongoing resource relationship with of the united states but we are going to be increasingly looking towards the iraqi to finance of this has the capabilities in rms of producing oil and selling it on the ternational market grows.
islamic let me add a couple of questions. i am ordered up the size of the police training program in terms of dominating what the diplomats, obviously they will be working with private-sector suppliers and vendors etc. but if you look at the numbers as a small chart in the report on the obama administration requests for iraq and if you call the police training security assisance it dominates the third more purely economic kind of assistance. in addition the folks in the civil society, education exchanges, that bold they are terribly worried iraq will have to compete with egypt and lebanon and everybody else for what couldbe overall the shrinking pie of official resources. so iraq may drop. iraq enjoyed this privileged positions of iraq peace and i've
heard on the civil society site people saying just when we should be at the kind of expansion phase them the security situation improved now what is going to happen is we are going to be competing chasing scarce dollars to continue the kind of program work that is just now bearing fruit so there is a struggle over resources over what part of it is going to look like still more security than civilians rather the total amount of resources available officially is when to contract over the obama administration for fy 12th requested an increase but it's not clear they will get it and then there's the question of the iraqis become more confident they can solve the finance will they always pick an american partner. and i think th will spread it out now. they will pick the european partners. we witnessed the danish journalist trainin in the kurdish region while we were
there. the europeans are in the game after many years of real reluctance and avoidance the europeans are they're mostly in the north but they wanted to civil society as well. so this will be in iraqi part of it and iraqi journalist when the story accounting and the dollar's and singing disprove the u.s. doesn't care. between our own ntional budget pressures and the reality of this transition people will be able to tell a story that looks like declining interest all the way to neglect, and it is much harder situation financially. the other thing we did mention the big u.s. embassy on the golf cart we gt to tour this vast complex of 27 buildings. and they are already talking about one part of the embassy compound could become a school
so they are beginning the process of also managing what is the right foot print for the united states in baghdad. right now it is a very large complex but it could become a multi use facility over time. spread the police training is a good example of the civil society asking for a holistic approach. for example one of the projects we ere doing in kurt kokesh was targeting police andsetting up with as a petition with local ngo leaders. there were false expectations between the police and training. there was fear among the local communities because they happen to represent one particular ethnic group wouldn't necessarily protect this communities of by facilitating the dialogue it was a part of, advocating part of the training where they are actually able to interact directly with the community they will serve in addition to the heart of technical training they are receiving.
>> [inaudible] at you think of the foreign iluence in my back. you touched on the complaint of some iraqis on increasing training on the kurdish infence in iraq and this year right now [inaudible] pushing the alliance to rate how do you see this playing out in the future wins the u.s. come out and there is tension between the west and iran on the nuclear issue and domestic policy in iraq how will that affect the
situation that iran is increasing the influence over there and if you go back to some of the statements made by the iraqi politicians the americans areot paying much attention [inaudible] would not be able to as condoleezza rice [inaudible] how do you see this in the future and to follow on the qution of the finances media have heard this from my rockies but i think a lot of them are building hope the united states would help getting iraq out. the united states has actually helped or has the will to
pressure the council or interact [inaudible] we see disturbing signs of the secret prison in baghdad and the kurdish border up north. the united states has pushed for civil society and human rights [inaudible] how does it play on the ground with fees' others? thank you very much. >> that is a hard question on how to measure work compare the kind of the foreign influence in iraq and i would not claim that based on our visit i have any deep insight and you don't -- it is hard to physically see that
you can measure or a monitor with the neighbors are doing. for quite a while now we've been hearing about increased saudi influence and i assume there are various tribal and political connections made possibly financing around election time etc. but i have no independent knowledge what that looks like and how it compares to iran. for me i do think turkey and iran are the outside players that actually have a physical presence in the country that is a diversified. for the turks it is a commercial presence as well as political and security relationship as well. with iran we did ask at the foreign ministry do you count the number of diplomats, do you make sure there is not too many that claim to the diplomats that really aren't? how do you manage the intelligence presence etc? on the business side of the ivory means, you sense that they
are building hotels and investing in business and that the high -- iranian and electronic thing spirit out of the business relationships should that be counted as notorious influence? i don't think so. from my measurement it should not come and was quite interesting to me to hear that the iraqis were beginning to complain that the quality of the irony in goods now that they saw the turkish goods. they felt the turkish goods were superior to the iranians even to the quality of the fruits and vegetables, so that was all kind of interesting. i dosee turkey has making headway in terms of being seen as a favored friend, protector outside actor etc., and but i didn't come away having any new thoughts on how to measu of iranian influence. iran has a new border when you talk about letting the pilgrims crossed to the know whether to
count whether the iranians went home today after the pilgrimage of course not so there's a problem of managing the borders and y don't need a visa to come from pilgrimage bill would need a visa to come for commercial business etc. so there are things that slippage to the crs and the iranians have literally thousands, tens of thousands of pele that move in and out of iraq for various kinds of activities. some of that is clearly has a dark side to it and is about buying influence and coercive diplomacy on the part of the iranians and it could be more than that. it could be preparing for subversion, sub tauscher, etc. but if they don't like the politics. there had been the view iranians didn't fare tt well in the sort of initial look at the election result that some of their favorite candidates did not prevail but because they
probably won't be strong enough to form the new gvernment the iranians still may get the pro-iranian coming in. i think there is no doubt the u.s. can't do it alone. we need other security council players to also agree it's a little bit about negotiating with kuwait over the final issues that remain in dispute. but io think that shuld be a goal of the united states and is a goal of the iraqi. would it make a difference on the resources? i'm not sure. and if you talk to iraqi they seem to think they reject the chapter 7 hanging over their heads but in other espects they are a member of the u.n. and the are eligible if others know the details on this please, speak up. but yes, it is outstanding business and should be resolved as soon as possible but i do
think that it is a delicate negotiation with kuwait as well. >> mabey skip wants to come in on that? okay. >> i would just like to comment very briefly on the issue o the foreign influence. i have been a bit of a naysayer on ts and friends of mine still in the government had been as well. in terms of the iranian influence, they failed repeatedly to force the iraqis to do what they want. they have had multiple agreements, economic agreements, military and so on which are now coming to fruition. they tried to host the meeting of the iraqi parties immediately ter the election to ind of pushed them altogether. that failed. they failed to deal of the strategic agreement between iraq and the united states and of course they failed spectacularly when they tried to persuade
maliki not to go after the militia in both baghdad and basra. so i think that the is an element here that isn't fully appreciated, which is the iraqi nationalism, which has a strong in many senses and i iranian pinch to the whole thing. that we've seen repeatedly. we've seen it supplely in many cases but fairly strongly and othrs. so why would not say that the iranians will in any way be controlling policy in baghdad. the seventh went on the government information process. but i don't think they are going to be the major power in baghdad aswe move forward. i think that is also even more true of the saudis, the turks
and so on. they have local influence. i believe they are able to influence iraqi politicians. but none of the parties is cui to control politics in baghdad or exercise outside influence with all of the parties that there or in iraq. >> the human rights person is a very difficult question. there's a lot of fear in terms of the securities sector in particular and there were complaints in the st about the ministry of interior. the minority we've been able to actually catch in the north of the christian groups that are fleeing the north because of their targeting. so there's a lot of questions about the violation of human rights. within the civil society to society cannot perform the role of government in terms of actually putting a stop to what is happening but they are actively monitoring and giving it out to the public, the journalists in terms of what happened in the northeast. that wouldn't have happened before and i want to see between 200even in the early years
from 2000 to become 2006 you are now seeing the press or all of that. and particularly because they're threatened thers a fear of media censorship now. you know, part of the impact that would ever has had with the media might actuallybe erased so the civil society steps forward singing we are taking it and we are not going to go back about these two are having their voice. is that we stopping? there is still a large gap that needs to be filled and the society is only a small part of that. >> charles, i want to ask more about the security in iraq involved in the gulf security and particularly about the 70's the irqis small arab states always speak to then you have the iranians. what do you hear from iraqi or