tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 17, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
>> good afternoon, everybody. i came your today to be as helpful as i could be to the community. service of honor the ihose lost in the benghaz attacks. i'm tried to have served at the state department and was honored to serve alongside distinguished diplomats and foreign service officers. from theated the time staff today. i answered all of their questions to the best of my ability. >> good to see you. >> former secretary of state hillary clinton will be testifying before the house committee next
thursday. this will be a first appearance before the committee which was created in may of 2014. with of live coverage on c-span3. you can also listen live on c-span radio, and watch a live stream on www.c-span.org [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] landmarkn presents " cases." it of historic supreme court cases. cases features introductions, backgrounds, highlights, and the impact of each case. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping.
>> in a visit to the u.s., the south korean president met today with president obama at the white house. the two also held a joint news conference. hour.s just under an an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the president of korea. president obama: annyong haseyo. good afternoon. last year in seoul, president
park welcomed me to the blue house. today, it's a pleasure to welcome her back to the white house. madam president, during your last visit here, you addressed a joint session of congress, which is an honor that's reserved for america's closest friends. you noted that the founding document of both of our countries -- our declaration of independence and your constitution -- enshrine our commitment to our people with the same words, to their "pursuit of happiness." for more than six decades, americans and koreans have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in that pursuit. and, madam president, once again, your time here includes a visit to our korean war veterans memorial. we are very grateful for that. it's a reminder that our people have fought and bled and died for one another's freedom. and i know your gestures mean a great deal to the american
people, and especially to our proud korean war veterans. in recent years, president park and i have worked together to strengthen our alliance for the future, and today i want to reaffirm that the commitment of the united states to the defense and security of the republic of korea will never waver. our alliance remains a linchpin of peace and security -- not just on the korean peninsula, but across the region. and so south korea plays a central role in america's rebalance to the asia pacific. and we continued that work today. as we agreed in seoul last year, our militaries are investing in shared capabilities, including the technologies and missile defenses that allow our forces to operate together effectively. we want to ensure that our korean allies have the capabilities that are needed to take on greater responsibility for the defense of the peninsula and the eventual transfer of operational control of the alliance. and we're determined to maintain
our readiness against any threat. madam president, i want to commend you and the people of south korea for the resolve that you displayed this summer following north korea's reckless actions in the dmz that wounded two of your soldiers. north korea was reminded that any provocation or aggression will be met by a strong, united response by south korea and the united states. likewise, pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs have achieved nothing except to deepen north korea's isolation. today, president park and i are reaffirming that our nations will never accept north korea as a nuclear weapons state. we will continue to insist that pyongyang must abide by its obligations on the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula in a peaceful manner. and given the horrific treatment of the north korean people by their government, our two nations will continue to expose abuses and call for accountability for human rights violations. at the same time, we do support
president park's efforts to improve relations between south and north korea. as my administration has shown with iran and with cuba, we are also prepared to engage nations with which we've had troubled histories. but pyongyang needs to understand that it will not achieve the economic development it seeks so long as it clings to nuclear weapons. in contrast, president park has articulated a better vision -- a unified korea free from the fear of war and nuclear weapons -- and that's a vision that we very much support. beyond the peninsula, president park shared her proposal -- the northeast asia peace and cooperation initiative -- to build greater cooperation among the countries of the region, and we welcome those efforts. president park and i met with
prime minister abe of japan last year to address shared challenges. and the trilateral summit that president park will host this month can be another step forward in building positive relations between south korea, japan and china. with respect to trade, we reviewed the first three years of our korus trade agreement. bilateral trade is up, including exports of american autos. we do still have work to do, and i conveyed that when the issues of implementing korus have arisen, they have been resolved, but we need to resolve them quickly. and president park discussed the regulatory reforms that she's pursuing. those are reforms that we welcome. and finally, i'm pleased that our alliance is increasingly a global one. south korea is not just an important player in the region, it's increasingly an important player on the world stage. south korea remains a partner in development, in afghanistan; a member of the coalition against
isil; a generous donor of humanitarian aid to syrian refugees. and now, we're going even further, expanding our cooperation to some new frontiers. for example, given the increasing cyber threats to both our nations, including from the dprk, we're stepping up our efforts to strengthen our cyber defenses and coordinating at the highest levels -- the white house and the blue house -- making sure that we're in sync in dealing with that challenge. in the fight against climate change, we're accelerating our investments in clean energy. our new civil nuclear agreement reflects our shared commitment to the safe use of nuclear power, which is a low-carbon energy source. and i want to commend south korea for announcing its post-2020 target to limit carbon emissions through its national cap-and-trade system. as we head into the paris conference, south korean
leadership can be an example for other nations around the world. and finally, we're expanding our cooperation to promote health and global development. and having already worked together against ebola, south korea has stepped up as a true leader in advancing global health security. our development agencies will partner to reduce poverty and encourage sustainable development in southeast asia. and both our countries are standing together to promote education and health for girls around the world -- our let girls learn campaign and south korea's better life for girls initiative. so, madam president, thank you once again for your partnership, your leadership and your friendship. i believe that we've shown again today that our unbreakable alliance is not just a foundation for security in the korean peninsula and in the asia pacific region, more and more our alliance is helping people around the world in their own pursuit of happiness, the security and prosperity and
dignity that they seek for their families and for their nations. madam president. president park: mr. president, thank you very much for your remarks. i also thank you and the american people for the very warm welcome you've extended to me throughout my visit. now, in today's summit, you and i discussed not only the korea-u.s. alliance, but also issues surrounding the korean peninsula, northeast asia, and a shared global agenda. during the past two and a half years, we've been able to creatively resolve such sensitive issues as a conditions-based transition of operational control, and the revision, after 42 years, of the nuclear cooperation agreement, which evidences that the korea-u.s. alliance is stronger than ever. our alliance is now moving beyond a security alliance and an economic alliance, and evolving into a comprehensive global alliance. the biggest threat to peace and security on the korean peninsula
and in northeast asia is north korean provocation and advancement of north korea's nuclear capabilities. and president obama and i shared recognition in many aspects of this issue. first, to deter any strategic provocation by the north, korea and the u.s. will continue to strengthen coordinated efforts with the international community, including china, russia and japan. and to this end, we will try to fully utilize the various regional and multilateral gatherings that are to take place. second, with a sense of urgency and firm commitment, we have agreed to strengthen diplomatic efforts to resolve the north korean nuclear problem. on the basis of korea-u.s.japan cooperation, we will strengthen coordination among the other five parties, while korea and the united states will deepen consultations with other countries, including china.
third, should north korea demonstrate a genuine willingness towards denuclearization, we reaffirm that korea and the u.s., along with the rest of the international community, stand ready to extend cooperative measures to the north. in our discussions, we looked beyond today, the current -- we looked beyond the current pressing issues of the korean peninsula, and engaged in deeper discussions about the future of the korean peninsula. with regard to the changing situation in the korean peninsula, and in the process of peaceful reunification, we will continue to pursue mutually coordinated policies on north korea. at the same time, to create conditions conducive to peaceful reunification, we will also deepen high-level strategic consultations between korea and the u.s. i would also like to thank president obama for his support for the korean government's ideas on peaceful reunification. today, we adopted a joint statement on north korea that contains our shared recognition on these related issues. the korea-u.s. alliance is the linchpin of
peace and stability in the asia pacific. and there exists a synergy between president obama's rebalancing policy in the asia pacific and our northeast asia peace and cooperation initiative, or napci. and i would like to thank president obama for his warm words of welcome and strong support for napci. in late october, the second high-level napci forum will be held in seoul, and i hope that korea and the united states will continue to engage in close cooperation in that forum and beyond. president obama also recognized korea's initiative in reviving korea-japan-china trilateral talks that had been on hold for the past three and a half years. and he also expressed his high hopes for the korea-japan-china summit that will be held in two weeks' time. we also shared the recognition that such meetings may meaningfully contribute to the improvement of bilateral relations in our region.
president obama affirmed that korea-u.s. relations and korea-china relations can be compatible, and supported korea's policies toward china. the recent summit meetings between korea and china, the u.s. and china, and now korea and the u.s. have served to build consensus regarding north korea and its nuclear program, and we believe that this will play a positive role in ensuring peace and stability on the korean peninsula and throughout northeast asia. in dealing with the north korean nuclear problem, we will also seek to strengthen cooperation between korea, u.s. and japan. i believe that strengthening three-way dialogue between korea, the u.s. and japan, and korea, japan and china, will enable us to open new channels for stronger regional cooperation. regional peace and stability becomes stronger when countries within the region build closer ties of mutual economic dependency.
in this regard, i would like to congratulate president obama for the successful conclusion of tpp negotiations. korea and the u.s. already have an fta with very high standards. and in this respect, i believe that we make natural partners in terms of the tpp. since tpp negotiations have now been concluded, we will be engaging in closer cooperation with regard to korea's possible participation in the tpp. today's meeting was particularly meaningful in that it provides impetus to efforts to open new frontiers of cooperation within the korea-u.s. alliance and strengthens our global partnership. korea and the united states will focus first on health security, cybersecurity, space and arctic cooperation, which are gaining
the spotlight in this 21st century. in the realm of space, particularly, we will work to quickly conclude talks on the korea-u.s. agreement on space cooperation to establish an institutional foundation for such cooperation. in the cyber world too, in order to enhance common response capabilities against cyber-attacks, we've agreed to establish a hotline between the white house and the blue house for cyber cooperation. on global issues, president obama and i, on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the united nations, have agreed to strengthen cooperation on climate change, development cooperation, u.n. peacekeeping operations, nuclear security, humanitarian aid for refugees, violent extremism, and other urgent global issues. today's summit served as an opportunity to set forth a clear vision and strategy for the future of the korea-u.s. alliance.
in forging a new korean peninsula, a new northeast asia, and a new world, i'm confident that the korea-u.s. alliance will continue to evolve into a comprehensive strategic alliance. president obama: we'll take a couple of questions. we'll start with michelle kosinski, cnn. reporter: thank you, mr. president. on 2016, now that we've seen the democratic candidates in their first debate and how they did -- and maybe you can share some of your thoughts on how much you watched of that -- (laughter) -- do you feel like the window now has closed on the vice president entering the race? and if you don't feel that it's closed, do you feel that he, in a sense, owes it to fellow democrats to get in very soon? and also, on israel, we heard secretary kerry say that one of the roots of what's going on there now is frustration over settlement activity. do you feel like that is a root cause of the violence? and do you feel like president abbas has a responsibility to
condemn attacks and try to stop them? and, president park, welcome. as you know, the u.s. has reached this deal now with iran over its nuclear program. i'm not sure if i should start over -- were you able to hear that, president park? as you know, the u.s. has reached a deal now with iran over its nuclear program, but how would you feel if that were north korea? would you welcome attempts for such a deal, and do you feel like you would ever trust north korea to abide by such an agreement? thank you. president obama: the democratic debate was taking place at the same time as some ball games -- [laughter] so there was a little bit of clicking back and forth. i'm not going to comment on what joe is doing or not doing. i think you can direct those questions to my very able vice president.
the one observation i'll make about the democratic debate was that those are all some very fine people. they share a belief in an economy that is working for everybody and not just a few. they share a belief that america has to project strength around the world by maintaining the finest military, but also by making sure that we've got a strong economy back home, that we're employing diplomacy and working with other nations wherever possible to solve big problems, like climate change. so what was interesting to me was the degree to which -- although there are some very real differences among the candidates, and i'm sure those will emerge, and there may be for each candidate some differences with my administration -- overall, they very much -- we very much share
a vision of an economy that works for everybody and effective pursuit of america's national security through all the tools that are available to us. and i was very impressed with all of them, and i know them personally. and they're good people. beyond that, i think it's up to the american people to decide. and so i will have a vote like everybody else, as a citizen. and that ballot is private, and i don't have to share my views about that right now because i think it's important for the american people to make up their own decision. reporter: do you think it's too late for (off-mic) -- president obama: i think that the vice president, like every other candidate, makes their own decisions about these issues and they'll have to figure out whether it makes sense for them. with respect to israel,
obviously we're very concerned about the outbreak of violence that initially is centered on jerusalem, but we always are concerned about the spread of violence elsewhere. we condemn in the strongest possible terms violence directed against innocent people, and believe that israel has a right to maintain basic law and order, and protect its citizens from knife attacks and violence on the streets. we also believe that it's important for both prime minister netanyahu and israeli elected officials and president abbas and other people in positions of power to try to tamp down rhetoric that may feed
violence or anger or misunderstanding, and try to get all people in israel and in the west bank to recognize that this kind of random violence isn't going to result in anything other than more hardship and more insecurity. and i don't think that it's -- i don't think we can wait for all the issues that exist between israelis and palestinians to be settled in order for us to try to tamp down the violence right now. i think my views are well known that, over time, the only way that israel is going to be truly secure and the only way that the palestinians are going to be
able to meet the aspirations of their people is if there are two states living side by side in peace and security. those talks, which secretary kerry put enormous effort in, and before that, a number of our envoys and secretary clinton put enormous effort in, have stalled. and i think it's going to be up to the parties -- and we stand ready to assist -- to see if they can restart a more constructive relationship. but in the meantime, right now, everybody needs to focus on making sure that innocent people aren't being killed. and even though you didn't ask me the question, i'm just going to horn in on the question that you asked president park, because we actually discussed iran and what it could teach us about the situation in north korea. these are both countries that
have a long history of antagonism towards the united states, but we were prepared to have a serious conversation with the iranians once they showed that they were serious about the possibility of giving up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. and i suspect president park agrees with me here that, at the point where pyongyang says, we're interested in seeing relief from sanctions and improved relations, and we are prepared to have a serious conversation about denuclearization -- i think it's fair to say we'll be right there at the table. now, whether even if they made that gesture, they would then be willing to subject themselves to the kind of rigorous
verification regimes that we've set up with iran, particularly given their past violations of agreements, that's a separate question. but we haven't even gotten to that point yet because there's been no indication on the part of the north koreans, as there was with the iranians, that they could foresee a future in which they did not possess or were not pursuing nuclear weapons. reporter: so just to be completely clear, do you agree with secretary kerry on the role of settlements leading to the -- president obama: i don't think that's what secretary kerry said. i think what secretary kerry said was, is that we have to end the violence; that israel has a right to prevent its citizens from being subjected to random violence. that all parties have to lower the rhetoric; that the religious sites that are so important to
three of the world's major religions inside of jerusalem need to be respected, and that the status quo that allowed shared worship in and around these spaces needed to be maintained. and then, i think as an addition to those statements, what secretary kerry said was, is that the atmosphere in which there's so much tension and suspicion between palestinians and israelis obviously creates the potential for more misunderstanding and triggers. and that's something that has been true now for decades. and if we can make progress there, obviously it's going to help, but there's not a direct causation here. and what we do need to make sure of is that we're focusing right
now on ensuring that innocent people aren't being killed. president park: with regard to the iranian agreement and whether it could be applied to the north korean situation, i think that was what the question was about. now, if you look at the iran negotiations and how it was concluded, how you reached an agreement, we saw the united states and the u.s. leadership lead the whole process, and we had other countries that also made concerted efforts. we had international efforts that came together that made this possible, and i think that's a very important lesson that we need to take away from this. now, if you look at the north korean nuclear problem, we do have international cooperation in that area. we have china and russia that
are also vehemently against north korean nuclear capabilities. so we do have some international cooperation there. but the difference between iran and north korea might be something that president obama just said, and i totally agree with him. what's important here is that you need to have this genuine willingness, on the part of north korea, that they will give up nuclear capabilities. this might not be a perfect example, but you can take a horse to the trough, but you can't make it drink water -- there is a saying. so it's the same thing here. north korea has to come to its own conclusion that it is genuinely willing to give up nuclear capabilities and become a full-fledged member of the international society. they need to have that.
if they don't have that, then even if we have international concerted efforts, then we won't see a conclusion to these negotiations or talks like we saw with iran. so that's a big difference that i see here. president obama: who do you want to call on, madam president? they all seem very capable. reporter: now, the korean peninsula trust-building process has been the basis of the korean government's efforts to improve inter-korean relations. but despite these efforts, north korea has really not changed its attitude towards developing nuclear missile capabilities. now, in the second half of your term in office, how do you plan on steering inter-korean ties? and one more. now, from your visit to china in september, we have been seeing you say that you want to see unification of the koreas. do you really think that this will be possible during your
term in office? and i have a question for both of you, actually, finally. in korea, they say that you see each other often and you start to grow fond of each other. now, this is your fourth time meeting as a summit meeting, and you also see each other a lot at multilateral talks. so i just want to ask, have you grown closer? president park: now, let me answer the last question first. then, yes -- the answer is yes for me. so let me continue with my answers to your question. now, the korean peninsula trust-building process -- basically we have this principle. we will be very sternly and decisively dealing with any provocations, but we're also leaving the door open for a dialogue, and we'll continue to make efforts to build trust. so this is the basic principle,
and this is the basic underlying foundation of all our north korean policies. in august, there was a north korean provocation in the demilitarized zone, and we stuck to this principle and applied it to the situation. and we were very firmly responding to the situation, and as a result, we were able to reach the august 25th agreement between the two koreas. so we had this vicious cycle where north korea kept on provoking us and then we just rewarded it, and it went on and on. and we want to stop this. and we are very clear that our north korean policy will not change just because north korea continues to provoke and threaten us. now, the korean government will try to smoothly implement the august 25th agreement. and we seek to put into place concrete measures for
reconciliation and cooperation in an effort to maintain this momentum for improved inter-korean ties. now, in the past, some people -- you might have thought that, well, if you just let some things slide, won't you get along better? but if you look at the results of that attitude, they really weren't very good. we need a principled approach, and this principled approach might make it difficult for the time being -- the immediate time being -- but that is where improved relationships will actually start. that is my belief. now, reunification is something that no one can really predict. now, in the summit earlier too, we talked about germany and how chancellor kohl said that german reunification would happen in 10 years' time -- but then three days later, the berlin wall came falling down. so it's really something that's very unpredictable. but no matter when it happens, for us, we need to be prepared. i think that is the most important point for us. so for any circumstances, we need to be prepared.
and we are making efforts in this regard. now, we do have reunification preparation committee that are looking into the practical aspects of reunification, how we prepare for it. but reunification is actually not just between south and north korea, it also affects the greater international community. so we need to also look at our neighboring countries, and we need to create an environment throughout the world where there is consensus that people agree that, yes, reunification is needed and this will be good for the region, for peace and prosperity. and we need to be able to tell our neighbors and the greater world that reunification is a good thing for the region and the world. and we will continue to make efforts in this regard as well. president obama: i was impressed the first time i met with president park and just have become more and more impressed
with her leadership, the clarity of her vision. and she has not only been a great partner to us, but i think has helped to continue korea's broader role in global affairs. and so i'm very proud to be working with her, and i think our strong relationship is also a reflection of the extraordinary friendship and close relationship between the american people and the korean people. carol lee. reporter: thank you, mr. president. now that your administration has said that iran very clearly violated a u.n. security council resolution with its recent missile test, what are the consequences for that going to be?
would you be able to accept additional u.s. sanctions against iran? and given this missile test and iran's actions in syria, how concerned are you that they're being this aggressive before they've even gotten the billions of dollars that they're supposed to get under the nuclear deal? and if i could quickly ask you if you could comment on the deal that the u.s. and russian militaries have reached. does this mean that russia and the u.s. are going to be at cross-purposes in syria going forward? and if you could, are you disappointed that secretary clinton opposed your trade deal, particularly given that your administration has not released the final draft? and, president park, you recently appeared in beijing with the leaders of russia and china. what message were you trying to send with to the u.s. with that
appearance? president obama: all right, i've got to write these down, carol. iran. what was the second one? reporter: russian military. president obama: russian military. reporter: hillary. president obama: and hillary and -- got them. [laughter]all right, let's see if i can take these in turn. with respect to iran, iran has often violated some of the prohibitions surrounding missile testing. and our position with respect to u.n. resolutions, prohibitions, and potential sanctions are unchanged with respect to missile programs. and this is something that i made very clear during the debate around the iran nuclear deal: the iran nuclear deal solves a specific problem, which is making sure that they don't possess a nuclear weapon. and it's our best way to do that. it does not fully resolve the wide range of issues where we've
got a big difference. and so we are going to have to continue to put pressure on them through the international community and, where we have bilateral channels, through bilateral channels to indicate to them that there are costs to bad behavior in the region and around the world. but we're not going to do that more effectively if they're also on a separate track pursuing a nuclear weapon. with respect to their actions in syria, as i've said before, they're just doing more of what they have been doing for the last five years, as is russia. and it's an indication that their basic premise, their basic theory of how to solve syria has not worked and will not work. their preference originally was, we will simply send arms and money to assad, and he will be
able to clamp down on dissent. and when that didn't work, they directed hezbollah to come in and prop them up, and sent in some of their own military advisors. and that did not work. and now the russians have come in, and iran is going to send more people in. but it's also not going to work because they are trying to support a regime that in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the syrian people is not legitimate. and our goal is, even as we double down on going after isil, is to continue to cultivate relations with a moderate opposition that can serve as a transition to a new government inside of syria, and that we continue to have a process of getting the iranians, the syrians, and all -- the iranians, the russians, the turks, the gulf countries, and all the other interested parties to sit down and recognize we've got to have a political
transition if we want to end the humanitarian crisis and save the structure of a unified syrian state. with respect to russia, the only understanding that we've arrived at is how do we de-conflict in the event that our planes and their planes might be occupying similar space over syrian skies. so in that sense, we've arrived at an understanding and some channels for communications. where we will continue to differ is in the basic set of principles and strategies we're pursuing inside of syria. president putin believes that if he continues to do what he's been doing over the last five years -- and that is prop up the assad regime -- that the problem will be solved. our belief is, is that we have to go after isil and violent extremist groups. but the magnet that the civil war there is serving in bringing
in foreign fighters and recruiting people to this extremist cause will only go away if we're able to get a political track and a legitimate, inclusive government inside of syria. so there's no meeting of the minds in terms of strategy. but my hope is, is that as we continue to have these conversations, and as i suspect russia starts realizing that they're not going to be able to
bomb their way to a peaceful situation inside of syria, that we'll be able to make progress on that front. and with respect to trade and how hillary views trade, i'd have you direct questions to her. i mean, here's a general proposition, guys -- during the course of what will be a long campaign, i probably won't be commenting on every single utterance or decision that the various candidates make, because i think that it is natural and proper for candidates to run on their own vision and their own platform. and what's encouraging is the fact that i think everybody on that stage at the debate affirmed what i've said in the past, which is we agree on 95 percent of stuff and on the basic vision of a country that is building out our middle
class, is making sure that everybody who works hard gets a shot, that believes immigration strengthens us rather than weakens us, that believes that people should be treated fairly and equally. the vision of the democratic party that i've fought for is one that is broadly shared by all the candidates. there are going to be some areas where they differ at any given point. now, i'm happy to make the case once again for the trade agreement itself. and i hope, carol, you take the time to read it because what you'll see is, is that it meets the promise that i made -- the most progressive, highest-standard trade agreement
that we have ever put forward that deals with chronic problems like child labor or forced labor, and is enforceable; that makes sure we are upping our game in the asia pacific region on the environment, and is enforceable; that protects intellectual property that is the wellspring of innovation here in the united states; that makes sure that our businesses are treated fairly when they invest in other countries; that opens up markets. keep in mind, we have some of the lowest tariffs in the world already. so we're already seeing goods and services being sold by other countries here, and the countries that are part of tpp have significantly higher tariffs. for us to be able to get those
lowered -- just the example of japan, where they slap on 10, 20, 30, 40 percent taxes on some of our goods and services -- for those to come down and, in the case of u.s. manufacturing goods, those tariffs being eliminated completely -- that's a big deal. so i'm sure we'll continue this debate as we post the actual terms of the agreement and congress has a chance to review it. i'm pretty confident i'll be able to persuade a whole lot of people, once they see the outlines of the deal, that it's the right thing to do. and as president park indicated, there's a geopolitical reason for us doing it as well. we want those of us who already have high standards to make sure everybody else does, too.
because that's going to make our businesses more competitive, it's going to put our workers in a better position so that they're not undercut by low wages or forced labor; that their plants don't suddenly shut down because we've got environmental laws that other countries aren't following. it's the right thing to do. reporter: can i ask you, are new u.s. sanctions an option for responding to -- president obama: i think what we'll be doing is we'll review, as we have in the past, any violations of u.n. resolutions, and we'll deal with them much as we have in the past. so what i've been very clear about from the outset is that, although we are eliminating -- or suspending, effectively -- sanctions related to the nuclear program, subject to snapback if we see violations there, that sanctions that are related to ballistic missiles, human rights violations, terrorism -- those we will continue to enforce. and that's not just unilateral
and sanctions on our part. our expectation is, is that there will be continued international consequences where u.n. resolutions are violated. president park: that was a very long answer, and i kind of forgot the question that was asked to me. [laughter] president obama: this is what happens when i get three or four questions. [laughter] president park: oh, yes. i think the question about my visit to beijing and what kind of message that i delivered. now, i met with president xi in china, and i also met with the leaders of russia. and the north korean nuclear issue in our region, in northeast asia and even the
world, it's a very large threat. and this is something that we need to make concerted efforts to resolve. and i had dialogue on that topic with them, and we also talked about the security threats, and also the north korean nuclear issue from the standpoint that from the korean peninsula and throughout eurasia, we all want to grow together. and there are so many possibilities there, but right in the middle blocking our way is north korea. and because of that, the growth potential of the whole of asia and europe is being damaged a lot because of north korea's ambitions in terms of nuclear. so that was my message that i had for the leaders that i met in beijing. and they agreed with me in terms of my remarks about north korea's nuclear problems, and we
all agreed that we needed to make efforts to resolve this issue. reporter: first, i have a question for president obama. within the united states, with regard to the korea-u.s. alliance, there are some people who are concerned that there are some cracks. what do you see? and in this situation, president park has visited the united states. what is the significance of her visit? i also have a question for president park. now, through this visit, you have said that you would like to open new frontiers of cooperation, and i'd like to hear some details on that, please. president obama: actually, i don't see any cracks in the relationship at all. i would argue that the u.s.rok relationship is stronger than it's ever been, that the alliance is on firmer footing than it's ever been across the
spectrum of issues -- military, economic, people-to-people, scientific, development, global issues -- that we have excellent relations with the government. our communications is strong. our vision of a continued robust alliance that can deal with any contingency is not just given lip service to, but we invest in it on an ongoing basis. our vision of what we need to do to see improved relations with the dprk, we have similar outlooks. and so i actually feel very good about what where the relationship between the united states and korea are.
i think what's interesting -- and this might connect to the earlier question that carol had -- is sometimes there's a perception that if president park meets with president xi, that that must cause a problem for us. well, president xi was in this room, eating my food. [laughter]and we were toasting and having a lengthy conversation. we want south korea to have a strong relationship with china, just as we want to have a strong relationship with china. we want to see china's peaceful rise. we want them to be cooperating with us in putting pressure on the dprk. we want to be working with them to uphold international norms and rules of the road. so there's no contradiction between the republic of korea having good relations with us,
being a central part of our alliance, and having good a relationship -- good relations with china. i think as i communicated to president park, the only thing that we're going to continue to insist on is that we want china to abide by international norms and rules. and where they fail to do so, we expect the republic of korea to speak out on that, just as we do, because we think that both of our countries have benefitted from the international norms and rules that have been in place since the end of world war ii. and we don't want to see those rules of the road weakening, or some countries taking advantage because they're larger. that's not good for anybody -- including south korea. obviously, given the size of
china right there on your doorstep, if they're able to act with impunity and ignore rules whenever they please, that's not going to be good for you -- whether that's on economic issues or security issues. so, again, i think there we have a shared interest. and my hope is, is that as a consequence of the outreach that president park has done, the outreach we do, the interactions that we have with japan and resolving some of the historical challenges that exist there, that we can create in northeast asia the kind of cooperative, forward-looking relationship among all countries that will be good for our children and our grandchildren.
president park: with the united states, we are looking to open new frontiers in cooperation, and new horizons for cooperation as well. we're looking at climate change, infectious diseases, space exploration. those are just some of the topics that we talked about. these are global issues, too. and in order to effectively respond to the needs with regard to these issues, i believe that we need a very close cooperation between korea and the united states. now, these issues need our attention in terms of cutting-edge technologies and new industries that we need to develop, and only then will we be able to approach these issues and resolve them effectively. and in that respect, i think that we need to engage in cooperation to maybe develop -- jointly develop technology in these areas. for example, we could have joint projects in smart grids or clean-energy projects.
and in the area of space, we have agreed to work together to quickly conclude a korea-u.s. agreement for cooperation in space. so through such efforts, we have an economic alliance between korea and the u.s. that was forged through the korus fta. and we want to turn this into a high-value added alliance that's ready for the future. >> on the next washington journal, congress heads towards an october 29 deadline. the group representation 2020 discusses a new report that shows women being underrepresented in government
and the national and local level. and they talk about the legalization of marijuana in the u.s., with maryland becoming the most recent state to do so. plus, we take your calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. washington journal is live every day on c-span. this monday, on the new series landmark cases, by 1830 the mississippi river had become a breeding ground for cholera and yellow fever partly due to slaughter houses in the area. this problem, louisiana allowed only one government run slaughterhouse to offer to the city district. the other houses took them to court, follow the case of 1873, fear drama paul clement -- we are joined by paul clement.
he helps tell the history of this time. and the personal stories of the butchers in the state of things in new orleans. be sure to join the conversation as we take your calls, it beats, -- tweets, and facebook comments. for a background, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book it is available at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> coming up next, a discussion on women in foreign policy. later, a campaign event in cambridge, new hampshire with hillary clinton.
>> a conference was recently hosted on women and foreign policy. include opening remarks from valerie hudson, and a conversation with former undersecretary of defense. she discussed female engagement in world affairs, and efforts to make the military more inclusive. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> is the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which thrust the united states into a global war on terror. this is also the 20th anniversary of the u.n. conference on women in beijing -- in beijing, china. hatlary clinton asserted t women's rights are human rights, overirls and women all
the glove k -- globe know that now. this month is also the anniverasry of 3325, which to includeations women in all peace negotiations. so the last decade or so has been a time of great change. are these related? i think they are. i don't think it was a coincidence that young men from nations where women's rights observed. i don't think it was a coincidence
as donald steinberg has said, it has become my favorite quote of the last year, and you can see that we invited him. because he wanted to hear directly from him, not just his quote. but take a look at there. not just his quote. but take a look at there. compare those societies that respect women. and those that do not. who is trafficking and weapons and drugs? who is harboring terrorists and pandemics? whose problems acquire u.s. troops on the ground? there is a one to one correspondence, do not only there is no relationship between national security and the empowerment of women. and he is right. and what i would like to do now in setting the stage is to explore that proposition in greater detail with you. and sort of open and set the dialogue for the conference. that the security and status of women impacts the security and stability other nations is not
some brand-new proposition. 2006,ample, way back in we had kofi annan the then you united nations secretary-general say that the world is starting to grasp that there is no policy more effective in promoting health and education than the empowerment of women and girls. and i would venture that no policy is more important in preventing conflict or achieving reconciliation after a conflict has ended. perhaps what was lacking in the het was strong evidence year basis for these assertions. that time is over. what i hope to present in the first few opening minutes of this important conference is a broad survey of such findings. which i believe demonstrate across a wide variety of mentions that what is happening with women strongly affects the trajectory of the nationstate and even the international system. of these take a tour
dimensions, if you will. are you interested in future security? if you are, then you should be interested in women. women produce most of the world's food. for example, in sub-saharan africa, women perform 80% of agricultural labor. and over 50% of such labor worldwide. women is also true that only old 2% of land, even though study after study has shown that the caloric intake is highly coordinated with women property rights. the food and agricultural administration calculates that if women farmers were given the same assistance as men in terms of land extension agents and training, malnutrition would drop 70% globally. capital on crops is only given to those who own the land. the men.
this is despite the fact that study after study has shown that over 90% of a woman's earnings go to her family. the only 40% to 60% of a man's earnings go to his family. we know that women are expected fuel,cess food, find find potable water, on top of their other responsibilities with children and agricultural work. they have a triple commitment of time throughout the day. often, however, expected to eat last. or to eat food of poor quality. this is shown in the fact that two thirds of malnourished children in the world are female children. societies,icultural it is actually women who are responsible for seeing that women and children do not start. and men in these cultures may find it equally shameful to help
their wives. and so they do not assist them, even though studies have shown that men who do assist their wives in these kinds of labors have significantly larger harvests and those that do not. mightestion to ask is, and equitable treatment of women make famine and malnutrition more likely for a nationstate? the answer is well-established, it is yes. economicso establish prosperity. the world bank did a series of very significant studies several years ago in which they took a variable they call the gender gap. the larger it was, the greater the disparity between the lives of men and women. , themaller the gender gap more equitable. what they found is that the larger it was in society, the lower were the gdp was in the
nation, this was highly significant. the larger the gap, the lower the rate of national economic growth. when you do not harness the talents and the energy of one half of your population, you are simply not going to grow as fast as other nations. he also found that lower investment in female education was again strongly linked to national income. and last, other organizations have found that over and over, those developed projects with a gender component are far more successful than those without. so again, we raise the question -- might and equitable treatment of women make poverty more likely? healthwe argue yesterday and women is a topic i think we know quite a bit about now. and the status of women is strongly linked to national health outcomes. the stronger the gender gap the lower the incident in infant
mortality and child malnutrition. the smaller it is, the lower the share of household tax on cigarettes and out the hall because women have more of a say in how the income is spent in the household/ . the larger the gap the higher the aids rate and the overall burden of infectious disease within the population. and lastly, the larger the gender gap, the lower the life expectancy -- not just for women, but for men as well. and so, might and equitable treatment of women make disease more likely in society? i think that is so. my stomping ground, i am a specialist in security studies. here is someee
very interesting findings. some of which come from my own research. studies, we have found that the higher of level of violence against women, the more likely a nationstate is to be noncompliant with international norms and its own treaty obligations. the higher the level of violence against women, the worse a withn states'relations its neighbors. the more likely a nationstate is to be involved in internation and internation conflict. more likely it is to use violence first in a conflict. the higher the level of violence against women, the less peacefully the nationstate will behave in an overall sense in the international system. and some of my earlier work on abnormal sex ratios and security
there, we show that in case girls, of chinese orling them from the birth post may delete from female infanticide creates a young adult female population that is 50% larger than the male population, fueling what we , generalviolent crime instability, and the potential for regional conflict. so a good question for us to pose is whether inequitable treatment of women makes conflict more likely? we can also look at the imension of governance, here am relying on wonderful studies that have come out of the european union and the inter-parliamentarian union and so forth. the larger the gender gap in the country, the higher the levels
of perceived national corruption. the smaller it is on the other hand, the greater the level of trust in government and the greater the transparency in government. and what researchers have found when they go down into the micro level and they look at what women are doing when they are in the legislature, they have discovered that the representation of women in moreion-making is higher, lawmaking revolves around issues of social welfare, fighting corruption, and approving legal protection for citizens. , andhat we have also found these are some brand-new studies that are hot off the press, when women are represented in peace negotiations after a conflict, participants are likely to be far more satisfied with the alsome and what we have found is that the agreement is
significantly more durable. it will actually last longer if there is representation of women. so, we might ask ourselves, might and equitable treatment of women make poor government more likely? and of course, we cannot overlook demographics. cannot talk about demographics unless you are willing to talk about men and women. and yet sometimes we do talk agencyemographics as am we are not part of. when marriage is an institution that is conceived of as being hierarchical, where marriage is highly in equitable between men and women, unsustainably high levels of population growth often result because a woman is not in control of her body in such marriages. societyther hand, when makes it economically irrational
for women to have children by punishing mothers in the workplace, as we see in nations such as japan, sub-replacement birth rates often result. women are not stupid. if you are going to punish them for having children, they're not going to have children. and lastly, a word has to be said about the overall global sex ratio. sex ratiol global should be about 98 men to 100 women, women tend to out live men. have a longer life expectancy. what we find now in the 21st century is that that global overall sex ratio is now 101.4 men per 100 women. this is a stunning factoid. what we're talking about here is literally tens of millions of missing women, some demographers estimate almost 200 million
missing me women from the world. from the university of canterbury and i have been a recent survey of childhood sex ratios around the globe. 1995 when we were first conducting the research, there were only five nations that had abnormal childhood sex ratios. when we redid our study this later, a015, 20 years total of nations is now 19. there are now 19 nations in which childhood sex ratios are significantly abnormal. sex-electiveat abortion is taking place. 100,alteration from 98 to up to 101.4, that is not the result of any sort of natural plague or disaster.
this is a completely man-made alteration of the population of the entire world. and it is worth thinking about. and of course, is such an andlance, localized extremely high sex ratios, we have found ratios where there are actually 2:1. two men for every women in specific locales in india and other countries, marriage market obstructions take place. where men are not able to find marriage partners or form household. and this leads to a deep sense of grievance and instability as well. so we might ask ourselves, might in equitable treatment of women make demographic problems more likely question mark absolutely.
know iswe have come to that women are not the canary in the coal mine. oftentimes, this metaphor is used to suggest that where women -- that sign that something has happened in society -- yes, that is true. but i would like to suggest that male-female relations with in the society are the coal mine. and the canaries that are singing are the poverty and malnutrition and exquisite violence and a poor governance, all of these issues at the nationstate level. this is that conceptual secretary of as state hillary clinton so dramatically put it in 2012, the subjugation of women is a threat to the common security of our
world and to the national security of our country. has come to be known as the hillary doctrine. now in my field of study, security studies, we often talk about this german term called real politik. otherwise known as realism in american jargon. the ideas that the national security of the country is best secured by taking an unvarnished look at the realities of the situation and dealing with them forthrightly, well, if that is the case then, given the evidence that we have, that means that seeing women is in fact a pillar of clear-eyed realpolitik.
whether we are examining the durability of peace accords, food security, national health, wealth, quality of governance, interstate relations, or any other aspect of national security, women empowerment helps intangible ways. and i think the rest of the speakers in this conference will be testifying to that fact over and over what they have seen on the ground and what they have seen through their own lived experience. however, that is women in foreign policy 101. i would like to suggest that it is not that simple. as patricia and i claim in our new book, "the hillary doctrine," and my publisher would like you to know there is a book signing at 5:00. [laughter] simply that we can
sprinkle in women, stir it up, and it will get better overnight. that is not the reality. real moralome quandaries. and we talk at length in the book about these moral quandaries. cases, the united states and other nationstates are forced to stay silent as women are oppressed under certain legal codes. and this is not because we do not care about these women. the archetypal example here would be saudi arabia. while she was secretary state, despite the fact that hillary clinton asserted that the subjugation of women was a direct threat to the security of our national system, hillary clinton remained conspicuously silent about the treatment of saudi women.
not because she does not care about those issues. there is no way that one could accuse hillary clinton of not sincerely caring about women's issues. think, a because, i very clear-eyed view of the alternative. alternativethe sources of power in saudi society, the current saudi government looks really pretty good. what kinds of silences and we have to maintain in the context where we see no better alternative for women on the horizon? and i am certainly convinced that what we called the arab spring was actually a winter for women in that area. where rights were summarily and immediately stripped from women
as the regime changed to a freer system. whether you talk to egyptian women, libyan women, even if you talk to tunisian women and others in the region, they can tell you case after case they woke up the next morning and all of a sudden, the right for which they have fought for decades, it was erased with the stroke of a pen. how could that be? trued, it is also very that we need to be pragmatic. and that sometimes open support for women activists and other aveseties lead vulnerable to accusations of intrigue and treason. are we putting them at risk if we openly support them? that is another big moral quandary. and then there is the issue of
principle oft leaving a conflict zone. and what our obligations are to the women we leave behind. i believe our second panel on the situation of women in afghanistan will be tackling this question. when i visited the united nations two years ago and had a big lunch with united nations women, i was told that americans have blood on their hands with respect to places like iraq and afghanistan. that we encourage these women to stand up. and now we have left them defend for themselves. their fate is our responsibility. if they are murdered, that is blood on our hands. that is another moral quandary. another one is what i sardonically call the feminists
ate.hes pontius pil the united states is such a great power, surely we can use that on the half of women worldwide. using things like military interests to help women may be misguided. are the women of iraq safer now because the american military invaded the country? no. absolutely not. and yet on the other hand, as we the womene case of who have been kidnapped and turned into sex slaves, surely the feeling also arises in our breath that can't we americans do something about these women? i think these are two balls, we have to do something. we cannot do something. because it will make it even worse. er moralanoth quandary. to,i think as was alluded
what about our own health? the u.s. has not and probably will not ever ratified paid maternity leave. i believe there are only three nations in the world that can make that claim. and as steve crawford pointed out, slightly less than 20% of our legislature is female. and we have significant levels of violence against women in our society. so what about our own domestic front? another set of issues that we go over in our book, and i think many panelists talk about, is slow death by bureaucracy. that is a good idea. such as the hillary doctrine. wonderful things have taken place, we now have a national action plan for women's peace
and security to be formulated in 2011. the united nations has not been sitting on their hands, we have security council resolutions demanding and obligating the nations pay attention to what is happening to women. for those of you who are policy wonks, you will know the import of this. we actually have nine gender indicators in the list by which all of our programs are benchmarked. now mandatory gender training, so if you want to join the state department, you will be taking courses in gender analysis. diplomacy andl development review that looks at the activities of the state aid, thent and the us report has numerous mentions of women and their importance to
the area of development and diplomacy. in fact, a gender analysis is requestsin all usaid for proposal. again, that is a little wonkish. for that represents progress here. and lastly, the department itself has been active in this area. on it has several efforts these insecurity that we will be talking about in a moment with michele flournoy. but there are problems still. even under secretary of state hillary clinton, the four years she served in that position, some within the administration actually characterize attention to gender as a pet rock that was weighing down our set. it had to be left by the wayside.
there were more important things to do. genuflect to the idea that women were important. i can only imagine that secretary of state henry clinton was a forceful personality and making sure the people agreed him at least on the surface, the gender was important. but many of them may not have taken it as seriously as she did. and dropped it as soon as the going got tough. haver book, and we even ,onderful comments our own dean there was a lack of will at the top. these issues were too easily put aside when the going got tough. believend thing that i has undermined the notion that women matter in foreign policy is the fact that we have no hard
targets yet for a lot of these issues related to women. so for example, i think i told you that united nation security council resolution 1325 mandates the presence of women at peace negotiations. there is no one in forcing that. even the u.s. state department recordretty spotty track of including women in peace negotiations. so for example when secretary of state john kerry was assembling negotiations over the syrian situation, outside activists actually had to ask, where are the women?
where women have been absolutely marginalized. they are technically on the peace commission, but they don't meet with the peace commission in most cases. the last of these hard targets has made it easy to say something rhetorical about women and simply never follow through. and lastly, those of you who actually worked on the ground my co-author who were who we will has worked ontly the ground in places like yemen and afghanistan and other nations, the stories that are told about the kinds of subcontractors who were hired to implement for grams concerning women will curl your hair.
types of implementers that we have that are visiting brothels running brothels who cannot work with women in their theoffice and who undermine gender programming at every turn. these are real and chronic issues that we face. which brings us to this conference, that's one of the reasons texas a&m in the bush wanted to hold an intensive high-level conversation about these issues. we need to be asking questions like what is a foreign policy that takes women seriously look like? that the swedish foreign minister has announced that sweden will have a feminist foreign policy. yet at the same time we know that he was forced to back down on criticism of saudi arabia. how is this to happen? what does it look like? second? what is the u.s.'s
responsibility towards the women of afghanistan or more broadly and more abstractly what does whatoctor and suggest right behavior is in leaving a conflict zone? what is the doctrine that takes women seriously look like? i don't think we know that either. then our experience over first 15 years of the 21st century, what recommendations we we give to the next u.s. president? what should be on the to do list? and our third panel is going to be discussing that very question. we've assembled a stellar group of individuals that we hope will be addressing concrete and challenges at this timely season of presidential campaign and debate. what should be on the to do list of american presidents? all in all i think the scene of this -- the theme of this
conference is how do we do this? i'm not sure that we know. but we've had enough years of experience now that we should be able to do what the military calls an after action report, what did we do right, what are we not doing right how do we avoid the same mistake? i have a couple of concluding thoughts. have studied these issues for many many years. i've compiled probably the informationbase of concerning women. we have information on over 350 variables for 176 countries from the year 1995 onward. i've been in a position to track changes progress and regress for women over the last 20 years.
at a very detailed level. i've come to a couple of conclusions. a do not one is believe that there can bps within nations or between nations until there is peace between men and women. has a humankind both globally and within every society. groups to whom the future of these nations comes the children of these nations. and secondly, i've also come to the deep conclusion that the roots of many things that we value such as democracy and human rights are to be found in the character of societal relations between men and women. democracy atave the national level if you have
no shared decision-making power within the household? house anyone that society going to understand democracy if what they see is autocracy within each household. things that are often not spoken of but are critical to speak of. so without further do i think that means that one of the most important discussions we is the discussion that we are going to have today. i am thrilled to be part of it and let's begin. thank you very much. i would like to invite michelle
to come up on the stage now and all she does we're going to have a conversation with her. she is a cofounder and chief executive officer of the center for a new american security. if you're not familiar with that organization, i think it is one of the brightest most innovative think tanks around. she sits as undersecretary of defense for policy from february to february 2012. she was the principal advisor to the secretary of defense in the formulation of national security and defense policy. oversight of military plans and operations in national security council deliberations. she led the development of the 2012 strategic guide for the department of defense. she is definitely someone we want to hear from at this time. should you like to read more about her, i will refer you to
the bios at the end of our program which are much longer than we are able to recite here during the conference today. so michelle? michelle, think you so much for being here i'm grateful for the -- to you for coming. now as i just read in your biography you have been in policy planning at an extremely high level in the department of defense. and your center for new american security is in the business of providing well-thought-out recommendations to the security establishment. in your view, what should be the place of women's issues of empowerment and u.s. national
security planning? >> first of all the me say thank you for inviting me to join you today. i cannot think of a more important and timely topic for i to be wrestling with area think for all of the reason straight i thought your presentation was excellent in terms of bringing data to the question. too often only talk about these issues it's seen as an issue of morality or fairness. data-drivenn from a outcomes perspective. i think one of the things that needs to happen is more of this data that connects the state of women in a society to the kind bututcomes that do affect the security that nation international security, our security. that needs to be brought much more to the four.
i think a lot of the things that we talk a verys good game about primary objectives and deterring and preventing conflict rather than having to go and respond crises. but we don't do a very good job that.ion in actually implementing our policy in a way that's august on prevention. a lot of what i saw in your presentation are things that we should actually be trying. where we our policy need to be making what kind of investment using all the tools for power and influence to try and shake some of these situations. those are much more costly in
terms of blood and treasure. security peace and part of the responsibility under the national action plan was given to the department of defense. from your purchase, how is that received? was it something the department of defense authority recognized as being important, or did the develop over time? what experiences to the u.s. military have in may be seeing women in their campaigns in afghanistan and iraq? >> i think honestly when this first came across the desk with folks in the pentagon their reactions ranged from stupid what you asking me to
do? and to kind of an high role. oh politically correct requirement. a lot of people came to mean. you're the senior woman you explain this to us. found wasg thing i that to take that sort of higher-level reaction everything from bafflement to skepticism to -- you goyou started down to people on the ground. you talk to the marines who first worked with female engagement teams. time they started to be able to access the female population in afghanistan through fema marines. first of all got a lot of good information. started really having much better picture of what was going on.
started being able to engage those women and bring them into the discussion of where the community is going and what needed to be done. started having a much better sense of where that could have a greater impact. talk to those folks. you start to get a totally different appreciation. most of the people i met in the military have the privilege of working with, they are not ideal. we are starting here from people in the ground is that this actually makes the mission governor. it actually works. that started filtering up. he started getting a genuinely more engaged at the policy level. >> so i hear you saying that
this is excellent something that had to trickle up. >> it was being driven at this policy level. it wasn't really -- it was a reluctant compliance is a those two i'm going to embrace this because it's making me more effective. once he saw that, i think you got a different level of reaction area and the challenge of -- of was talking to brenda earlier. the challenges there is so much turnover in the military that one units learning curve, you can get to the point where you kind of start off -- start over with the next unit. they have to relearn those lessons. if that transference of knowledge doesn't happen, it
needs to happen in training. this seems to be a part of how new units are trained. otherwise, it's of this. you roll the ball of the hill in the next appointment of rolls back over you and your set at the bottom having to go to hill again. i would like to see something that a future secretary of defense might be interested in. it's actually kind of mainstreaming some of the training so that you don't lose all the memory of what people gained through hard experience. >> i've been through this with other issues before, back in the 90's coming out of the somalia experience coming out of the haiti experience them as a time when most of our military training stopped and for fighting. ensure -- deploy you take down the regime.
then what? the truth is it was not in the planning of the exercising. people look at you like i will know. so the truth is you have to get embedded in the planning the doctrine the training the exercising. become realve this and sustains, and integrated part of what the understanding of how we are effective is. >> i've heard you talk about how -- women in as sense were an early warning indicator. about's this idea that the commander has and i am who's going on with women
actually going to see more than if they were only concentrated think certainly areas where the oppression of women was greatest, i think of a place like afghanistan, those tended to be the most difficult environments to actually create security. i also think that women were just an incredible part of intelligence weather was helping figure out who the bad guys iedly were or where the might be. , who wass corrupt trustworthy and legitimate as a leader versus who was governing because they had the most guns or men under arms.
you just got a totally different level. a wholly different nuance picture of the society that you're walking into. commanders that figured out how to leverage that tended to do a lot better. perks like to pick up on the ideas. i remember the female engagement teams that we spoke of and how really crucial they were in a number of instances. one of the things that women know is where the children a could not help but notice after the drawdown
female engagement teams kind of went away. there was no institutionalization of an mla. that like sort of a one-off. andof the expertise experience that the said members scattered to the wind. this is something the department of defense should be concerned about? we definitely have to be concerned abouthe phenomenon learn from the course of we develop a lot of best practices but then they are not necessarily institutionalized or captured was always the rest the next summer doing something you forget that you ever learned these lessons. i'm not sure that that teams
path, but this is very relevant to the discussion we're having now about what military operational specialty should be open to women. as you know, secretary panetta the services have until 2016 to comply that opens all military specialties to women or apply for a waiver. there was a story in the journal this morning about the marines having done a test and research signaling that they may actually asked for a number of waivers. if you had a fully integrated infantry or ground force you would not need female engagement
teams. women are there and part of the unit. you would need specialist training for them but not separate entity. i think in some way we need to institutionalize them. it's a larger debate about what specialties are open to women. i think it's fascinating always just had different attitudes that are prevailing, i do think there is a generational component here. far fewer issues of people who are younger and in the field or on the ground. in the army and we just had to women actually make it through ranger school. the army still debating about whether they would actually able to go ye and ranger units or any ground combat unit.
his -- he said a point-blank without blinking and i if women can pass the seals screening and training course welcome. why was my? anyone who can get this head course can serve. it's very interesting to see how these different attitudes are playing out. but i do think this will affect within thee issue of u.s. military, but also how we form in missions where we are attracting with society, half of which is female. i wonder how this differential approach will play out.
at some point the marines will probably get pushback? if we do get women rangers. >> it's silly for waiver. >> and revenue the new york times version of that article. was that it's not a it was some sort of operational effectiveness criteria. so socially about the make sure men and women. i do think the people in the unit have to be able to for -- perform the tasks. i don't think the standards as they are currently set necessarily correlate strongly actual performance of tasks and units. the standards-based approach is unit, but the whole
cohesion issue i think is overblown. folks that have really commencement of this are some of -- thet challenging teams that face the greatest challenge in afghanistan's rush operations 18's, is the folks ago were nobody else goes. operating on their own. many of them had women integrated as either intelligence officers in for the purpose of engaging the female population. teen, they felt the women dramatically improved mission performance. there were no issues whatsoever living in these conditions with women.
in fact, that's a leadership issue. what you talking about? there feeling was this policy that they completely divorced from their operational experience is. you can find some cases were there have been issues. i think it's a question of leadership and command climate. it's a question of culture and it's a question of accountability. if women can meet the standards on the door should be open. rightn with the leadership make the question of cohesion and nonissue. >> it made of all. those things. >> i think we deliver carefully
at the details of the standards and the tests that have been performed. when know in civilian life the door encouraged to join they had artificially stringent physical requirements. it was actually a successful court challenge. i think the thing is it's all of theot business literature is clear on the issue the if you have a more diverse team the performance of the company is better and the leadership make better decisions.
anddiversity of the team one of the best ways to increase performance profit leadership. i think that has to be weighed as a key part of this equation. x now you'll have to forgive my frog. we would be remiss if you and i did not talk about the issue of sexual assault in the military. at the same time we have are two graduating, rangers we also have stunning figures on sexual assault in the military. what if you could speak to that. >> it's a tremendous and unacceptable problem. we have to have a zero-tolerance policy.
to try debate is whether to strengthen -- handle this to the chain of command but supplement that with advocates for the victims better accountability etc. or take the out of the chain of command and create a separate sort of system of justice to get after this. when i first was wrestling with this issue, i did not know where i stood on the debate. aasked to have dinner with and the firstjags female military judge to get their perspective. they were from different generations in different services. it was really interesting to me and that they were unanimous in their view they said if the overall objective is the full
equal integration of women in the united states military taking this out of the normal system actually set act that goal. it is now women are special cases i roll. they said this is a question of leadership and command climate is a question of justice and accountability. the tools are there to make this work yes we need to augmented and utter representation advocates for victims in a whole range of other things, but what we need to do is prosecute , dishonorablyly discharging the offenders making examples of them. making examples of the commanders who look the other way and say you look the other way your careers over. that will end your career not advance it.
they said the system can work with the right leadership with the red accountability in the right implementation. is wherehat's frankly -- what's being tried. i'll think it's a method -- i don't think enough is being done but i think that's probably the past that we need to try first. a footnote to this. it's important to understand it's not just a women's issue. the statistics are such that more menbers they're sexually assaulted by man in the military than women every year. because the women make up a smaller amount the percentage of women is higher. but this is an issue for men and women in the us.
the services are approaching this somewhat differently. the zero-tolerance policy is being made real and others i think there is more work to be done. do you see as the role of women in foreign-policy decision-making in the united states? woman sense we talk about being at the table but women also need to be at the table and the pentagon, the state department, the national security council. how would you assess what we are doing there? >> we have made hard rest but we have a long way to go. i take as my premise the business literature that talks about the performance of teams when they are more diverse thing better and higher. i think that is true in national security in policymaking as well. my first tour in the pentagon
back in the 1990's in the clinton administration, i decided to -- it was a lonely thing being a woman later at that time so i said, let's have a lunch for all of the women, senior women leaders in the pentagon and we sit at one table, there was either eight or 10 and weeks afterwards there theories ofpiracy the women got together and had lunch, what were they plotting, what was going on? now when i was in the pentagon invited would say you all the women leaders in the pentagon you would overflow the executive dining room. so that is good. but at the very highest levels it still, i was often the only woman in the room for many meetings. i think it is improving in our agency but still women are definitely the minority.
i think progress since the 1990's, definitely better than it was but more progress to be made. >> would you be willing to entertain some questions? we have two microphones. if you would come down and state your name and where you are from , what you are affiliated with and offer a question. we have 13 minutes. we could take your questions. pleased him be shy. this is a wonderful opportunity. shy.ease don't not be about theou elaborate
jag luncheon you had? and jags female judges can takeh, the system care of this problem but it is not being properly used. there forced -- in their first point it is about climate. promotion and future in the service depends on how they handle these issues on the watch. and saying so-and-so did a really good job in afghanistan and iraq so i will look the other way because somebody is making a charge against him. that is not ok. they are part of their future and their performance, it is how they handle these issues that happen in their unit and suppressing them, moving