tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 21, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT
do you want to start, john? mr. mclauglin: it can be compared to the cold war times. people increasingly are talking about the russia-u.s. relationship is starting to feel like a cold war relationship because we are going to a higher level of tension. the main thought i have when i ,ead that sort of thing is that again, thinking of the next president. one of the first questions we have to answer is where do we want this to end? what is our vision of where this ultimately ought to settle out? the cold war, there is a difference. in the cold war, we knew where we wanted it to end. we did not necessarily want the breakup of the soviet union, in fact, 41 bush tried to prevent that. wanted to defeat
the idea of a global communist system, which we did. i don't know that we have as clear a vision in this current confrontation with russia. where do we want this to end? what do we want that relationship ultimately to be in something other than an idealized vision that we can never realize? i think that is how i reacted that, and that would be the principal problem politically, policy wise for the next administration. mr. clement: i think there is an interesting parallel between the early 70's. -- ieason example eyesight would site, when the russians annexed crimea, one of the first things putin did was turn to china, and very quickly director there were a series of deals.
he was looking for market because you realize i have to plan ahead, maybe my european customers are not going to be there. i've got to maintain my position in this trailer election should. triangular-- relationship. he quickly turned to china. it was like the 1970's. on the chinese side, i think there is important distinction. china wants nothing to do with the conflict with united states. they fought as in korea and vietnam. their future is not about a conflict or pressing the united states that hard. with they want is for the united states to honor their sphere of influence. to back out of their sphere of influence from a political standpoint. but all the students that come
here, we have 400,000 chinese students per year in american universities and graduate programs. mr. sesno: a lot of them right here. in our program. the chinese are very eager. this is something in the same context. chinese have been voracious consumers of american expertise and knowledge, they want to come to our program to learn about media and believe it or not, the government communicating with the public. mr. wilder: absolutely. mr. sesno: do you see that appetite diminishing? no, and idea was put fourth industrial revolution. it is the cyber revolution. the chinese are interested in
that idea. what did jack ma do the other day he bought a start up in kansas city. retinalpany did identification. he did that because he needs a system to make sure that the deals on alibaba are legitimate. this is what the chinese are doing now. they're skinning the world for new ideas. the world for new ideas. mr. sesno: another question from the audience. .omeone on the aisle we have a couple of minutes, if you could be brief. in regard to nato, you talked about the questions russia has about the enlargement of nato. can you discuss the question
that russia must be thinking about, how it can try to influence nato, the european partners and nato, to try and we can the ties to go on between the united states and nato in a very changing world? mr. clement: great question. think we see a very active russian program right now to try discord in nato. a lot of europeans are asking themselves how committed are we? are we prepared to do what it takes at a time we have a migration crisis? i want to bring in the syria angle. one of the things that struck me, because the russians are faced with the sanctions, and i think over time they are beginning to bite more and more, how you get europeans off the
stations train? you intervene in syria and find a way to and that war, and i think that is with the negotiations are about. then you take credit for helping to stem the tide of the migrants in europe. and then you say, look at what we've done for you. you need to work with us. is a silly argument, we need to be reasonable, rational people. and i totally by the sphere of influence argument. everyone needs to recognize that russia has certain prerogatives from a security perspective of having neighbors that they feel have conflicts with russian security needs. mr. sesno: anything, john? i would just say that this discussion so far is making me feel even firmer in my initial comment that it is a conflict world and things are
not as black and white as they might have seemed to be previously. be careful not to demonize our adversaries, even though they are adversaries on some level. we have to understand them, where they are coming from, strengths and weaknesses, and construct our policy with a realistic appraisal of those things. callesno: that is a good in this political atmosphere we andin, but demonizing him -- enemies and functionally -- unfortunately goes with the territory. we have just a few minutes remaining, i would like to ask you all to conclude things this way. we pretty well decided here i indeedthat there are power rivalries. that the premise has changed,
that the nature of the challenge -- powers has changed, whether attacksrrorism or cyber and the election meddling is a good example. we have ample challenges. in thinking about the united states of america and its global responsibilities going forward, in thinking about moving from a bipolar world to a unipolar weld, to a multipolar world, talk about this alliance management that needs to adapt to this new superpower, great power rivalry. can all of the talk about how you think this needs to change going forward as we think about the future of these rivalries.
mr. wilder: i pick up from john's point, it is a nuanced world. there are a lot of different subtleties. the china side is that we have not invested heavily enough in understanding the chinese position and the of not invested heavily enough in understanding our position. meet, butents frankly, for short periods of time. i think there needs to be somebody in the new administration, a cabinet member whose assignment is china, who the president relies on to build that relationship and start to understand the complexities of this in greater detail. to talk to the chinese about a new great power relationship and what that means. mr. sesno: just that way, a great power relationship. mr. wilder: where we going? we know one answer.
you think that would lead to things that have not happen for? mr. wilder: as long as it is on the stratospheric level and is private. i saw in the bush administration. we made tremendous progress. i think that would be my recommendation. mr. sesno: on the russian side? mr. clement: i think there is an interesting debate i see a different quarters about how to deal with putin. he will be here a while, in my view. he wants reelection. until 2024, who knows after that. i think he is very much more the kgb putin we worried about originally. you have a choice to make. you try to engage this guy and see if there is an area of negotiation, and there are areas where we should. military spending.
can russia afford to keep doing that? they might see benefits engaging in certain areas. are we prepared to continue to talk about things that are at the heart of the problem? missile defense. debate isside of the that this man is beyond redemption and there is no way we can negotiate, we need to take the long view, take the containment, chosen we will meet them every step of the way and see what happens over the long term. that i think is an instant question for the new administration to consider. mr. sesno: john, you started this, i will ask you to finish. mr. mclauglin: a wise statesman once said that there are no permanent friends and enemies, only permanent interests. i think that is an important launching point for this point in history. interests, how are they changing, and what are the interests of russia and china?
make sure we understand that and then trying to harmonize these things in a way, i'm not talking baya, but one where we realize what we want to achieve, our were -- what are priorities, and move forward from that base. it has worked for centuries. understand the interests of your rivals and negotiate on that basis. i think will be in better shape. litique.ed, real po mr. sesno: it has been a great discussion. it has remind us -- reminded us of the great powers are here to stay. it is also reminded us that there is a new dimension to explain this in some fashion to the public, social media.
this cannot be the domain of professionals to figure out how this world works. we've got to engage and enlist public understanding of public support for this, because it is complicated and we are in for the long haul. we will see how that plays out. thank you very much. [applause] >> excellent job, thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. next, from george washington university's cia conference, intelligence chief talk about working in partnership. this is just under one hour. [applause]
>> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for being here. i want to give special thanks to my colleagues, alex, mohammed, and nick. for agreeing to appear at this conference. as frank said, it is the first time they are speaking publicly in the united dates -- states. as one of them said, payback is hell, so i can only imagine what they will ask me to do. [applause] , there him specifically is a geographic dispersion here. we cover the world. one of the things i wanted to start off by asking, i mentioned this morning in my opening remarks just how important our intelligence partnerships are at the cia, that allows us to fulfill our mission. i wanted to get perspective from each of them whether or not a place a similar role in terms of
what you're being asked to do positions, especially looking back over the last 15 years when we have worked closely with one another. give me your perspective on the importance of those partnerships. alex? alex: thank you, it is a great pleasure to be here. partnerships. i'm a professional intelligence officer, i joined my six about -6 about 25o -- mi years ago. very much a product of the time, our focus was on the strategic intelligence mission, finding things out, deep penetration operations. culturally, i don't think at that time we were thinking automatically of this idea, and
that has changed. i put that down to a number of things. most important, we have gone from an intelligence service primarily about finding things out to one that is about doing things, acting on what we know. and that is all about partnership. we intercepted the terrorist threat, although we have experienced terrorism for a long time in our history, we have discovered that terrorism -- terrorists are adept and we have to be adept at networking a response. i think now we are at a place with the reverse of where i albeit in the covert space. of course, it is quite easy to talk about this community because we have shared values and shared threats, and we have
this close relationship. we have relied on services left like our own. we want a partnership without abandoning our values. mohammed, you have had a long and distinct career in afghanistan. your perspective on, as you are helm of the afghan intelligence service, how you look at those partnerships. mohammed: thank you very much. thank you for this wonderful opportunity. i think we are living in a very changing global environment. are facing threats not as under visual -- individual countries. we are facing threats that move from one part of the world to
another part of the world and is a transnational. to deal with that, we constantly deal with them just protecting ourselves, but we have to mitigate the threat at the same time to prevent that. in order to do that, we need the partnership. the partnership from a different angle is very important. one, because of national globalization of trade, we need to share information and get together and act together in many instances in order to stop the threat. time, for same countries like afghanistan, which has suffered for significant numbers of years from violence and wars, rebuilding the country, i think it is very important to have that partnership for sharing the knowledge, the experience and also to help the rebuilding capacity. if you look backward toknowledg,
and coming back to the institution, is a result of partnerships that afghanistan is achieving something which is something modern. new, gradually neutralizing, and using new technologies. , i thinkith challenges the partnership is extremely important, especially because we are living in a complicated neighborhood. on the intelligence side, you've been at the helm of this first or years, how you look at it? thank you for putting this together. i think this is quite a remarkable combination. it shows your powers of
persuasion. [laughter] nick: australia and the united states has always been a partnership that is vitally important to australia and its national security. that remains as true today as at any time in the past 60 years. but things are changing marketing -- are changing. if we look at the number and complexity of issues confronting our policymakers today, all of them have at their hearts a requirement for hard, timely intelligence. we can get some of that ourselves, we can get some of allies.m but increasingly as these issues
take on a transnational ,haracter, terrorism, smuggling supports of military operations around the world, that vitalrship, that partnership is not enough. that is what you two have been saying, as well. afghanistan,, for we have 410 or 15 years, relied heavily on our partnership. but look across the globe. these are transnational issues. from the south pacific, with intelligence and security agencies in southeast asia, the middle east, and so on. myriad ofips with a intelligence organizations are important to us in ways they have not been before.
mr. brennan: i love working with you and your services be cap -- because we have such an alliance. also because of a strong alignment of policy. sometimes we have opposite relationships with governments around the world, that can be a governor on the intelligence relationship. moscow in march, i talked to them about syria and try to push forward on counterterrorism, and i can tell you that my russian counterparts can be frustrating. [laughter] mr. brennan: increasingly so, quite friendly. but you also have the chinese, the iranians, the cubans. all of these countries where there are strong tensions between our policymakers. i put north korea way out there because it is beyond the pale. but how you look at our
relationships with some of the services of countries where some of the policies are frequently misaligned or not aligned and there can be adversarial relationships between our capitals? it is a fact that a lot of countries are run by people like us. int is safely not the case democratically constituted regimes. often the security intelligence component is the only constituency. it appears to me we are missing a trick. i spoke to the prime minister i want a day, he said coup. looking is the right way to arrange your country. we need to find ways of communicating with these countries.
often, communication between the intelligence services is the most important. i stand for my government to communicate, perhaps on hard messages. also, by talking to enter -- intelligence agencies, we are not looking at international approval. it is a practical way of communicating. there are significant limits, i think you are alluding to. as an, i believe strongly intelligence service we must uphold the values that we are constituted to defend. when it comes to cooperation, i think it is very different and friendly, we have to cooperate with very wide range of services across the world, we make it clear it is on our terms according to our values. that is easier said than done, but providing you can achieve that, you can arrange
partnerships which are important, because terrorists tend to do business in countries different from our own. mr. brennan: mohammed, you have personal experience with this? i think there is a big difference. to deal with the situation there, the first thing is there is always misperception. overcomence can help that misperception on what is happening in afghanistan, who is doing what, and particularly when it comes to the current situation in our region. i think one thing is very no country in the region is sacred. when it comes to china, working
hand-in-hand with al qaeda. the same thing when we come with russia, we have a historical relationship and we have an up-and-down relationship. we have had a hard time. many afghans have sacrificed their lives for that. is -- at the there same time, there is no doubt that we have to have relationships with each other. with iran, we share a closed border, but we have so much in common. countries, wehese and ideaown relation, of how to manage the relationship. there are a lot of differences. we suffer from the rivalries of other countries because of our
location. can playat afghanistan more than balancing role in keeping good relations with everybody. john, if i can add to your not just state actors. half of my working career was spent as a diplomat, in my former colleagues in the foreign ministry don't like it when i say this, but there are countries, there are regimes, governments, intelligence organizations and nonstate actors who will talk to an intelligence service but will not talk in the same way as honestlys directly, as to diplomats. about ite with alex being an opportunity to pass a hard message, but it is more than that to me. it is also an opportunity to
hear, to learn, to exchange views in a quiet way under the radar. no publicity, no attribution. a getting to know you, a getting to understand your position better. pass, and this is really from them to us, for the passing messages.sitive we don't like what you have been doing, it is easier to do that in some cases through an messages. intelligence service. a balancing of openness, being here on the stage, we are trying to engage with the public about our work. at the same time, we have a responsibility to make sure we keep certain things secret and use things discreetly. it allows things to happen take place that are out of the
spotlight, that the diplomatic realm is not able to have the same discretion. we have been faced over the years with this horrendous phenomenon of terrorism. much of what is rooted in a very distorted interpretation of faith, of islam. individuals who masquerade as muslim but are anything but am a they are murderers. this is a pmi's by al qaeda as well as -- epitomized by al qaeda as well as isil. are we still going to rise in the coming years before we see a decline, as we take away territory, the tentacles stretch far and wide. take a look at the next decade or so, how do you see this trajectory? alex: i would like to be
optimistic about this, but we have quite long experiences. i see it as the flipside of some deep-seated global trends, including the reduction of barriers between us. i think it is a function of the information revolution and the capacity for ideas to travel. i think it is fueled by a deepening sectarian divide in the middle east, and i think there are some deep social, economic and demographic drivers. and i think it aligns with the emergence of state which i think it is in enduring issue. to go back to the part worship conversation, we have gotten
much better at developing our partnerships to deal with it. the key to a practitioners to holisticd it as a phenomenon. in the u k, where you have a dangerous combination of a threat and radicalized community and our borders, we have to take a government approach and an international approach. i think we are doing a great deal too many great the threat. threat.ttee great the i think it is a phenomenon and more important, ideological alternative to the states that we hold dear side think it is good that we are making inroads to terrorism reduction in the isritory but i regret it
deniable to remove territory. you will have threats representing some of the fault lines still exist in our world that i think will be pressed for paper should for long-term partnership. >> you think it will get worse? mohammed: let me first say that we should not link islam with terrorism because sometimes there is misinterpretation of as extremism because the core value of islam is focusing ] which is howble the narrative should be strengthened in the islamic world. we have to focus more on it in order to really mitigate the spread of terrorism in the
world. secondly, i think we've seen the the past few decades extremism that is coming to the surface. when it was in afghanistan and at that time there was a first wave that started that gradually began spreading to people in different parts of the world who came to fight it afghanistan the second which was the level of fighting in extremism and al qaeda was the third one. i wanted to look to each of these levels of the aspiration they wanted a new extreme in order to recruit more people and then they used the new digital technology and
cyberspace and other countries and this is because of different reasons. was ames because this complicated crisis. when you go to other countries beyond what is attractive to go with these in join with these terrorist groups. they have the ability to bring anotherrom one side to side of the world and that was spreading. one of these things coming into what are the, goals of the extremist group that at the end of the day they will achieve? they are coming back and thinking about this phenomenon to tackle this problem in i think that is a requirement of the political world, how we should deal with this.
because sometimes our policy has contribution because we talk ] -- [indiscernible using them as an instrument of national security so i think that the first and foremost thing in order to mitigate this influences we should generate to a kind of strong political will to deal with these. not to support them, not to facilitate them. and then we can generate the kind of narrative that is valance to end the kind of partnership you are looking for. andinstance, the countries, the five countries that have a relationship with each other in the core values and aches from the place where it is or originating and
[indiscernible] -- that is how it can be mitigated and at the same time for the question, i think in addition to the ending at thisot stage. it will continue for a certain time but it will decline will stop -- but it will decline. >> john, you asked mohammad if it would get worse before it got better. i do not think it will get worse but i do not think it will get better at his for a long time. i have no doubt that in time mosul will be liberal -- wil be liberated and the caliphate will collapse in on itself but that is likely to be something unless
--are agile and cleverly clever. it even if in insurgency does not follow, think the ideology far, tooas spread too widely for us to be able to destroy it anytime soon. brussels, not just paris, not just u k or the u.s. or straw you or north africa. backyard in's southeast asia there are now isil affiliate in indonesia. in the southern philippines this year there have been for small-scale and pretty hopeless terrorist attacks. the willingness is there, the ideology is there.
thirdan go back to your ,uestion about partnerships partnerships for us in fact certainly the three of us in southeast asia with law enforcement and intelligence organizations is now and is going to be vital if we are to ensure the sort of terrorism we saw in southeast asia 2002 with bali bombings, if we are to ensure that does not occur again, working with what is now very capable intelligence and law enforcement agencies in indonesia, malaysia, and the southern philippines will be vital. in the southern philippines there is also in isil affiliate in looking at it through open
sources, social media, they seem to be taking all the boxes to lead the proclamation of an isil branch in the philippines. a lot.rries me i can see that acting as a magnet for one of the jihadist out of the caliphate. region, a just one region very important to me. it will not be the worst art of the world where terrorist attacks occur, but for australia it is likely important into those partnerships will also be vitally important. profoundly,anged the global landscape. most significantly as a result of the technological advancements we have all witnessed to end the discovery of the digital domain, the cyber
environment. you mentioned how to take advantage of that environment. do you see these developments on psychological fronts as well as the growth of the cyber environment being the great enabler of the intelligence professionals or is it a great disrupter of the intelligence mission and how do you inc.'s -- see things evolving in the coming years on that front westmark >> i think the revolution fundamentally changes environment including intelligence. it is as true for us as anyone else. i would go further just a that in five years time there will be two sorts of intelligence. those that understanding into those that do not in have not determined that it will be in this category. i think the reason for that is it is very interesting.
it is an interesting combination existential threat to and a golden opportunity. our opponents who are unconstrained can use these capabilities to gain visibility of our activities, which means we have to completely change the way we do stuff. it is a golden opportunity because lawfully overseeing and proportionately, access to data into intelligence can be an intelligence help to operations. threats of identifying before they eventually but also understanding the nature of intelligence opportunities and finding ways in which they can be pursued. these facts are interesting as far as i am concerned. we have to fundamentally look at the way we do intelligence operations.
there is the issue of cyber, to remind everyone, cyber is still another form of human interaction. it has humans on the other end of it but it represents a whole new set of disciplines. for us in the uk, it has led to a significant way to welcome integration of technical if you cane which overcome the institutional considerations we have, presents a great opportunity. so technology and human intelligence are a good part of our teacher. this is a fabulously important issue and one i say will dictate our future success. the issue is that of our values and the quality of the conversation we have with the public and our overseers about this. the extent to which we can be clear we can use these capabilities and discharge them in a way that fits with the values of our country.
in the uk, we have just gone through parliament in its final stages and a new bill which will be to regulate our data in this regard and i have been presently surprised by the quality of public debate and understanding position toour these give abilities and ability to do our job. this is important because most people in here and ignore the couple. our relationship with the tech community must be teamwork. it must be consensual with both of us understanding the common responsibility we bear. i think it should be of anyerized by the sort form of adversarial relationship so i would welcome the approval and conversation of the tech community. i understand the community on both side of the argument but i think our experiences to work
toward a solution to those issues and that came to light clearly in the session this morning on disruptive technology. this has to be commonly owned. mohammad, technology in the full corners of afghanistan. mohammad: limited by how technology changes. years ago,is -- 14 15 years ago in afghanistan summit you wanted to make a to -- toy had to go make a call because the decision was not there. information have technology and i think today afghanistan, and g2, and g4, migration is already happening and there is a lot of to our society and education in the other fields.
for afghanistan, think the modernization of politicalization, part of that inutilization of technology our day-to-day work and building for the future. that is also a benefit but at the same time we have a lot of --. vulnerability on how to create systems and also to cyber andrity is another -- issue we have to -- more on that. as far as technology, we are still ahead of those adversaries who are using it. if we lag behind it is a problem. repeat, technological change has created huge opportunities and huge vulnerabilities for intelligence
collection. if we do not get it right, we're going to lose. our operations will fail. the pace of technological change is not slowing down and it is not stopping. you can rattle off a few changes to nanotechnology, dna sequencing, facial recognition, gate recognition. you can go on and on. from a point of view, it is read much what alex is saying. i think the business model that decadesng well for six has to change. if it does not change, we help. we are changing already in what we are changing pretty much is everything. recruitng from how we
in officer to join, where we train that officer. the sort of training the officer receives. we deploy.hat the use of covert communications. you name it, it is going to change. and as i said before, if we do not make these fundamental our officers, our operations, our sources, our agents will be vulnerable in our operations will start to ale. so, we're in the beginning of a most fundable -- most fundamental change. >> as much as i am enjoying the role of questioner as opposed to being questioned, we will open
up to questions from the audience. to i don't know how you want do this, i cannot even see where people are. [laughter] >> over here. >> i am samir daniels. question i have, you raised some extremely important observations about transformation of intelligence. transformation of intelligence and i'm wondering how do you think that in communities you are leading, how are they responding to it? will they understand the dimensions because i think that the point -- the thing that i have seen -- is that the
political class sees the whole -- these issues of terrorism differently than the intelligence systems and they are using a different language and it is i think -- i think it confuses the analysis of a consequence all i was wondering, you know, what your thoughts were on that. not think in the astray in case that it is true. i think the language i have used in respect to terrorism and the threat of terrorism would be language that would be commonly used and generally accepted and understood in australia. >> i think one of the great things all organizations have is that individuals who join organizations have grown up in technology. they know how much the world has changed, they have not had to be
introduced to it as we have in our professional careers. they grew up with a comet's second nature to them. next question. isthey grew up with it, it second nature to them. doug samuelson, i run a company called info logix in annandale. i wonder if you could talk about the difference between sars and 2004 and a tandem make in 2018 is how quickly the right information gets to the right places. any thoughts? this one is for alex. [laughter] >> the response to that, i think that we should note of course we need to think eric carefully about future threat factors in
and we need not to have a failure of imagination will stop we need to be careful not to write the last war. best of our the endeavors put ourselves in the mindset of those who mean to do our societies harm. your question squarely addresses a significant issue but i think we are bound by considerations. my approach on the whole for is that as i've said already, they are done by groups of people who mean us harm and as a human intelligence officers , this is a self-serving observation but i think our course will be for the best concentration of the groups organizing against us so i think it is incredibly important that as i say we maintain our imagination in our agencies to have a deep understanding of the type of capabilities.
i do not think it actually changes the fundamental shape of the mission which is for us to be working upstream as far away as we can -- as far upstream as structure to provide and crucially to give our policy makers time and information they need to disrupt this. >> clandestine information about the threats we face as well is increasingly information available and open source that expertise to have assessment done about the nature threats we're facing, what are things we should be thinking about in terms of the mitigation steps you want to take as well as preparedness and resilience. on the biological front, these are things that we are think is organizations need to be thinking about because there is always an individual out there thinking up the most nefarious way of doing harm and creating chaos.
biological agents are one of the cia,s that we've been given that we have an allocation bill, we are constantly thinking monitor.g to it is not just the clandestine organization, there's so much information available out there in the domain. >> question over here. >> chris sanders with the american civil liberties union. mr. brennan, during your spokemation hearing you very convincingly, ok clean maybe, but convincingly about the need for the cia to go back to its core intelligence functions and away from functions that were historically held by the military and if you enter her colleagues could maybe talk a little bit more about, maybe progress towards that if you can. but also the importance of kind of segregating out some of these
functions. missionse five core both human in technical. counterintelligence. relationships are put into the categories as well as covert actions. that to our roots, world war ii and secret service. he hind enemy lines, serving as additional capability that was part of the war effort in world war ii so the paramilitary dimension has always been part and parcel of cia. but, collecting foreign intelligence is one of the driving forces in the cia and it is a question of balancing the capabilities, the development of infrastructure expertise that the president and every sunday 69since last aars has been carried out to
paramilitary dimension. but not always. after 9/11, there were so much of a demand to go out and go on the offense against terrorist groups. that's why cia was the first roots on the ground after 9/11 and afghanistan. person wasime a killed in afghanistan after 9/11 was a cia officer. we have invested a lot of love in our good friend and ally, the country of afghanistan. it is the case of balancing the capabilities and i think we should not have too much one where the other given the world is a big place and we have a lot of challenges. >> absolutely. context ofhin the our values, i'm interested in two things. the first is doing the things that other people cannot do. in other words, where do we, the covert capability, at the most value? the second is making a difference. when you look at the morality of
our business, it is about doing things that we expect to have a positive effect on the things that really matter to our government. so we focus on what we can do that will make a big difference. in a sense, the capability conversation comes after that. after you determine what takes a difference. that should be the subsidiary question. we come out of the human tradition in and i am proud of that being a relative specialty of my service. i don't want to elevate the input out of the output. the question is, within our values, how do we achieve that mohammad: i think the common core function is the same because they are looking to how to make the society more safer and how to have a kind of
political stability and also responsibility in the case of afghanistan, how to achieve peace and stability in the country so that is the core mission for the intelligence organization that we are heading towards that. but apart from that, i think it is important to have -- to provide the information for the decision-makers, the record of information, that they make the right decision on the right time. at the same time, it is an alarming system for many cases. whether it is a man-made disaster. you provide a kind of early to the decision-makers and also you can also take some action which covers covert actions and provides facility and can prevent in disrupt some of the elements that would impact the stability or instability in the country.
in particular, when afghanistan is facing a significant threat from an organization, our main efforts will be about how we can disrupt, prevent some of the acts because afghanistan is a place that every day we have 10-15 operations and we have prevented some of those attacks that take the lives of the people. so i think that is how our core values are developing. people are not seeing some of the acts of the intelligence agencies. the soldiers that nobody knows and they sacrificed our lives and they do not talk much but they hear and listen and communicate effectively. nick: we have been having this conversation. 10 or 15 years ago, all i would say in response to your question
asis collects information no other arm of the government can collect. but now it is much broader than that. and the broadness comes in trying to, mostly succeeding in helping us trillion governmentimplement foreign policy- and otherio policies. i part, we do that disrupting terrorist attacks. in part we do that type breaking up people smuggling syndicates. it is what alex was saying. in ---- we try to have end we do have the skills and abilities to take action in support of us trillion national security.
so it is broader than you and it was but it is not as broad as the cia. we do not have a covert facility or mandate. done in the power vested in our organizations, i hasten to add. we will go over there. >> thank you very much. i wouldn't trust ask a question to any of you and all of you who could answer. what applications do have one your intelligence service becomes aware of serious human rights violations by a partner intelligence service regarding stopping it, reporting it, or not disclosing it? >> so, we have the obligation to make sure we first of all investigate. there could be report so we seek corporation and confirmation he and as a result of whatever it is we wind down, we have obligations related to reporting
to congress as well as to executive branch authorities as the is to take steps with service that is and located and in so we have done that on a regular basis. sometimes we will be very specific in terms of what has to happen. maybe somebody needs to be removed from the service or units we are no longer going to be worked with because of the activity they engaged in but we will not continue to go down to the path that they are knowingly violating the rights. there are times when the cost of the relationship is a service we will pursue the relationship u.s. may.s. lives, hang in the balance. so i have special authority i can waiver for a. -- i canny issues or waiver for a time any issues of those violations but it has to be at a high level in terms of the importance of the relationship and we take these things very seriously.
>> absolutely, likewise false like i said at the beginning, we isnot defend anyone who undermining them. we live in a complex environment. one of the things i will not include is understanding the insidious and difficult ethical situations ourex office is collectively are written every day of the week and the laws about equipping them to deal with these issues. it is about increasing offices with the highest moral literacy and being really clear. as far as the uk is concerned, we have the guidance and it is published on record online so you can see it very clearly. a way of dealing with this longer-term is through engagement.
first of all, you will not deal with the terrorist threat and second of all implements for the better the behavior that partner so within the limits of practicality we will work closely to try and create capabilities, intelligence, training, and doctrine in a way that is inside our norms and values and we have been doing this for a long time now and in some areas of the world it has been extremely effective but it is ultimately the key message that needs to be intervention on our terms is based on our intelligence. countrynk in our everybody knows we have gone through so many atrocities and a cycle of violence in the country. human rights is one of the very highest priorities in our organization and we have collaboration with intelligence
and the ukke the cia and astoria and other countries as well but at the same time, with human rights, we have a close collaboration with the united nations as well in order the past is that the past and the issues will not be repeated today and i think afghanistan, i think everybody is watching very close to the that whatever we are doing it is observed. it is monitored and at the same time, there is a lot of effort in order to train into educate staff that how they should expect the human rights during andr work from day-to-day at the same time building that capacity at a level and at the same time where also very keen withd who we are working
conley it is a kind of two-way channel of cooperation that equal relations at one -- that one cannot impose things that violate the rights of the people in the country and at the same time corporation that we are politically promoting human rights together. we observe human rights because it is the right to do and the ethical thing to do but also because that is what the rules in regulations and laws of us trillion tell me i must do. tell me i must do you and i am not going to put anyone in a position where they are preserving -- observing breaches of human rights. it would not be fair, it would not be right. it would be degrading of the morality organization.
we have strict accountability those, thes, part of inspector of intelligence and don'tty, and office -- i know if it translates in the united states, but the royal commission to look at anything and everything we are doing as we are doing it or to look back. that is the process that works very well to regulate and oferstand the committees asis. so mine is the same of my three the differences with john, i do not have the right to waiver for any time. there is no room for me to
maneuver in even for a short time at all. >> with time for one more question. back there, a hand up. right there. louise kelly, npr. thank you for taking questions. chiefs onintelligence stage, as you will know, u.s. officials including director brendan say that edward snowden's disclosure has greatly harm the u.s. national security because they damaged trust and relations between u.s. intelligence services and their foreign counterparts. my question is do you three, is that true? do you share less with the united states plan you once did? -- then you once did? laughter] >> i understand we always go one question too far. real issue for us has been the effect it has had
australiaf trust in between the intelligence communities internationally and the technology community where i proper response to the common threat we face is through a community of effort and teamwork between those different groups. to the extent those revelations damaged and undermined the trust, i think it is highly problematic. >> i think we have to review some of the things that we are doing and maybe whether somebody should have that much of the access to all of the information that they can do the damage to the foreign services. so i think it is a lesson. so, i think from each case we learn a lesson and exit. >> i was a ham and may still that there is a debate about this in the united states. edward snowden damaged your national security in very significant ways.
[applause] >> with that, i do not want to ask for another question. laughter] >> but i do want to take advantage of the opportunity to express my appreciation to each and everyone of you. this is not something you do everyday, i realize that. and reflect the debt of the relationship we have with one another. have onerdependence we one another to carry out our responsibility to keep our citizens safe. but the increasing relationship around the globe, then intelligence professionals, we recognize as good as we are individually we really need to be able to work as closely as constituents.our
thank you not just for a pairing on the stage today but thank you and to your officers for what they do on a daily basis. i cannot think of better partners plan those who serve in the british, afghan, and us trillion intelligence -- and us australian- and intelligence services. thank you. >> coming up, president obama delivers his final speech to the u.n. assembly. then james clapper on global security threats. later, a panel with foreign intelligence chiefs. >> the smithsonian national museum of african and history and culture opens to the public for the first time on saturday. c-span spoke to african-american
members of congress about the museum is its significance in the country. here is representative one
more of wisconsin. gwen moore of wisconsin. >> can you tell us about your jewelry? >> yes. this is a replica of slave ships. i treasure this is so much because it focuses me on the path for moving forward. in that sense, can you tell us what you think the museum on the national mall means to the country? mallnk the museum on the means a lot not only to african-americans but people of all cultures in america. so much of our history is rooted in the tragedy, the black
movesust of slavery that to all of the things that african-americans have contributed to
our culture. music, art,rom culture, blues, jazz, and actually even so much as building the white house. in the capital. masonry. architecture, engineering, math. a lot of the disrespect that african-americans experience was based on people pause difference of our history beyond slavery. >> do think the museum could have a role in the national conversation where having about race? think of -- >> i think it will be contributing a great deal. there's so much african-americans can glean from this experience.
including ourselves the esteem so that we will insist on better policies toward african-americans. better educational opportunity. more equity. theddition to informing larger american public about their obligation to integrate asked into the melting pot. >> the founding director has said it is the american story through the african-american lens. do you agree with that and how do you see it playing out? bags i agree. >> i agree. this is in experience for all african-americans through an american land so that we see america in a very special way. indeed part of the american fabric. >> what sense to get from your congressional colleagues about
the support in congress for this museum? so excited. this museum was authorized in 2003 and there was a long history and struggle about getting this is that list and got one ofat we have the precious treasure in on the mall is absolutely a coup. important? is so >> because people often don't travel to virginia or beyond mall. people come to visit the mall. that will experience be accessible to all americans, they do not have to go out of their way to have the encounter with the african-american community. >> last question, which is the museum into your part -- personally? >> as i wear this jewelry, as i think about the shameful past of
african americans, i am so proud of the future. >> thank you very much. you.ank announcer: the smithsonian national museum of african american history and culture opens its stores to the public for the first time on saturday. speakers include president obama and foundling -- founding museum director lonnie bush. c-span will be live from the national mall starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. -- lonnie bunch. c-span will be live starting a 10:00 a.m. eastern. were asobama and he nurse to some extent by a creation they did not pursue. >> this week, robert samuelson talks about his position on
business and economics and the u.s. performance under president obama. >> my opinion is not so high because he pursued policies that essentially were aimed at a choosing his reputation and legacy and it seemed to me and undermined the general confidence in the economy. p.m.nday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. >> president obama spoke to the general assembly on wednesday. he focused his remarks on extremism and the conference in the middle east. president of the united states of america invited to address the assembly. pres. obama: mr. president, mr.
secretary general, followed delegates, ladies and gentlemen. as i address this hall as president for the final time, let's me recount to the progress we've made in the last 18 years. depths of the greatest financial crisis of our time, we coordinated a response to avoid further catastrophe and return the global economy to glory. we have taken away terrorist safe havens, straight -- strengthened the nonproliferation regime. change the iranian nuclear agreement through diplomacy. we renewed relations with colombia and ended latin america's longest war. and we welcome day democratically elected leader to this assembly.
our assistance is helping people feed themselves. care for the sick. promote models of development rather than dependents. we have made international organizations like the international banking and monetary fund more representative while protect our ways to environment from the ravages of climate change. important work. it has made a real difference in the lives of the people and it could not have happened if we had not worked together. and yet, around the globe we are seeing the same forces of global integration that have made us inter-dependent also exposed
deep faultlines in the existing international order. see it in the headlines ,veryday around the world refugees flow across borders in flight from brutal conflicts. financial disruptions continue to weigh upon workers and entire communities. across vast swaths of the middle east basic security, basic order has broken down. we see too many governments censoring the flow of information. terrorist networks use social media to pray among the mind of our youth endangering open societies and spurring anger against innocent people. powerful nations contest the
constraints placed upon them by international law. this is the paradox that defines our world today. a quarter century after the end of the cold war the world is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before. and yet, our societies are filled with uncertainty and unease and strife. despite enormous progress, people lose trust in institutions, governing the becomes more difficult. tensions between nations become more quick to surface. and so i believe that at this moment we all face a choice.
we can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration, or or we can retreat into a world sharply divided. intoltimately divided conflict around lines of race and religion. i want to suggest to you today that we must go forward and not backward. i believe that as imperfect as they are, the principles of open market and accountable governance, democracy and human rights and international law that we have forged remain the firmest foundation for progress in this century. i make this argument not based on theory or ideology that on facts. facts that all too often we forget in the immediate and see -- immediacy of current events.
here is the most important fact, the integration of the global economy has made life that are for billions of men, women, and children. over the past 25 years the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40% of humanity to under 10%. that is unprecedented. and it is not an abstraction. that means children have enough to eat. mothers do not die in childbirth. this promises to cure diseases that have plagued us for centuries. the internet can deliver the entirety of human knowledge to a young girl in a remote village on a single handheld device. and medicine and manufacturing and education and communication we are experiencing a transformation of how human
beings live on a scale that recalls the evolutions of agriculture. and as a result, a person born today is more likely to be healthy, live longer and have access to opportunity that at -- than at any time in human history. moreover, the class of colonialism and communism has allowed people to live with the freedom to choose their lease. despite the real and troubling areas where freedom appears in retreat. the fact remains the number of democracies have nearly doubled in the past 25 years. in remote corners of the world, citizens are demanding respect for the dignity of all people, no matter their gender or race or disability or sexual orientation.
and those who deny other dignity are subject to public reproach. in explosion of social media has given ordinary people more ways to express himself and has raised people's expectations for those of us in power. indeed, our international order has been so successful that we take it as a given that great powers no longer fight world wars. itthe end of the cold war lifted the shuttle of nuclear on a get in of europe have been replaced a peaceful unions. path and india remain on a of remarkable growth. to whitewashs not the challenges we face or to suggest complacency. believe we need to acknowledge these achievements in order to summon the
confidence to carry this progress forward and to make sure we do not abandon the very things that have delivered this progress. in order to move forward though, we do have to knowledge that the existing path to global integration requires a course correction. often, those trumpeting the benefits of globalization have ignored inequality within and among nations. have ignored the enduring appeal of ethnic and sectarian identity. have left international institutions ill-equipped, underfunded, under-resourced in order to handle transnational challenges. and, as these real problems have been neglected, alternative visions of the world have pressed forward both in the wealthiest countries and in the poorest.
religious fundamentalism. politics of ethnicity or tribes or sex. aggressive nationalism. a crude populism, sometimes only for left but more often from the whatight seeks to restore they believe was a better, simpler age free of outside contamination. these visions.ss they are powerful. dissatisfaction among too many of our citizens. i do not believe those visions can deliver security or prosperity over the long-term, but i do believe the visions fail to recognize at a very basic level our common humanity. moreover, i believe the acceleration of travel and
technology and telecommunications, together with a global economy that depends on a global supply chain makes it self-defeating ultimately for those who seek to reverse the progress. today a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself. simpleanswer cannot be a rejection of global integration. instead, we must work together to ensure the benefits are broadly shared, and that the disruptions, economic, political, and cultural that are caused by integration are squarely addressed. this is not the place for a detailed policy blueprint, but let me offer in broad strokes those areas where i believe we must do better together. it starts with making the global
economy work better for all people and not just those at the top. while open markets, capitalism have raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress in technology has also weakened the ability to make a decent wage. in advanced economies like my unions have been undermined the and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared. often those who benefit most from globalization have used their political power to further undermine the position of workers. in developing countries, organizations have often been suppressed and the growth of the middle class has been held back
by the corruption. and underinvestment. policies pursued by governments with export driven models threaten to undermine the understandsat global trade. trillionime, nearly 8 shadow stashed away in banks. a system that grows beyond the the reach of oversight. a world in which 1% of humanity controlled as much wealth as the other 99% will never be stable. i understand the gaps between rich and poor are not new, but just as a child in a slum today can see the skyscraper nearby, today's technology allows anyone with a smart fun to see how the privileged live and the
contrast between their own lives and others. expectations rise then, faster than government can deliver. a basic sense of injustice undermines people's faith in the how do we fix this imbalance? we cannot unwind integration any more than we can stuff technology in a box, nor can we look to failed models of the past. if we start resorting to trade wars, and overreliance on natural resources instead of innovation, these approaches will make us poor collectively, and more likely to lead to conflict. the stark contrast between the success of the republic of korea and the wasteland of north korea so that central plant control of the economy is a dead end.
but i do believe there is another path, one that fuels growth and innovation and offers the clearest root to international success. it does not require succumbing to a capitalism that benefits only the few, but rather, recognizes economies are more successful one week close the cap between rich and poor, and growth is broadly based, and that means respecting the rights of workers to organize into independent unions and earn a it means investing in our people, their skills, their capacity to take an idea and turn it into a business. it means strengthening the safety net that protects our people from hardships, and allows them to take more risks or start a new venture. these are the policies i pursued
in the united states and with clear result. american businesses have created 15 million new jobs. after the recession the top 1% were capturing more than 90% of income growth, but today that is down to about half. plaster poverty fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years. with further investment in infrastructure and early childhood education and research, i'm fairly confident such processes will convene. just as i pursued the measures here at home, so have the united states work with many nations to curb the excess of capitalism, not to punish wealth but to prevent repeated crises that can destroy it. that is why we have worked to create higher and clearest and it's for banking and taxation,
because a society that asks less of oligarchs than regular citizens will rot from within. that is why we push for transparency and cooperation. illicit dollars, because markets create more jobs when they're fueled by hard work and not the capacity to extort a bribe. that is why we're work to reach trade agreement that raise environmental standards as we have done with the transpacific partnership so the benefits are more broadly shared. just as we benefit by combating inequality within other countries, i believe advanced economies still need to do more to close the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe. this is difficult politically. it is difficult to spend on foreign assistance, but i do not believe this is sturdy.
for the small fraction of what we spent at war in iraq, we could support institutions of fragile states do not collapse in the first place. it is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. that is why we need to follow through on the effort to combat climate change. if we do not act boldly, the bill that could come to will be masked migrations and food supply decimated and conflicts born of despair. this agreement gives us a framework cap and only if we scale up ambition, and there must be a sense of urgency about bringing the agreement in force
and helping poorer countries leapfrogged distractive forces of energy. so for the wealthiest countries, a green climate fund should only be the beginning. we need to provide market incentives to develop new technologies and then make them accessible and affordable for poorer countries. only then can we continue lifting all people of from -- property without condemning our children with a climate beyond their ability to repair. so, we need new models for the global marketplace, models that are inclusive and sustainable. in the same way, we need models of governance that are inclusive and accountable to ordinary people. i recognize not every country will recognize the same model of governance.
i do not think america can or should impose assist some of governance on other countries. but there appears to be a growing contest between authoritarianism and libertarianism right now. i believe in the liberal political ordnance. build not through just elections and government but respect for human rights and civil society, and independent judiciary's and the rule of law. i know that some countries that now recognize the power of free markets still reject model of free societies. perhaps those of us who have been promoting democracy feel somewhat discouraged since the end of the cold war because we learned liberal democracies will not just wash across the globe
in a galway. it turns out elting accountable institutions is hard work. the work of generations. gains are often fragile. sometimes we take one step forward and two steps back. countries held together by borders drawn by colonial powers with ethnic enclaves and tribal divisions, politics and elections can sometimes appear to be a zero-sum game. given the difficulty and forging true democracy in the face of these pressures, it is no surprise some argue the future of the strongman, a top-down model. rather than strong democratic institutions. i believe this and king is -- this thinking is wrong. i believe the road of true democracy remains the better path. i believe in the 21st century, a economies can only grow to a
certain point until they need to open up because entrepreneurs. young people need a global education in order to thrive. independent media needs to check the abuses of power. without this evolution, ultimately the expectation of people will not be met. suppression and stagnation will set in, and history shows strong men are them left with two paths, permanent crackdown that spark strife at home, or scapegoating enemies abroad that can lead to war. i will admit, my believe that government serve the individual and not the other way around is shaped by american's story.
our nation began with the promise of freedom that apply to only the few but because of our bill of rights, because of our ideals, ordinary people were able to organize in march and protest and ultimately the ideals one out. turning our diversity into a strength. it gave innovators the chance to transform every area of human endeavor. made it possible for someone like me to be elected president of the united states. so yes, my views are shaped by the specific experiences of america, but i do not think this story is unique to america.
look at the transformation that has taken place in countries as different as japan and chile, indonesia, botswana. the countries that have succeeded are ones in which people feel they have a say. in europe, the progress of both countries and former soviet bloc that embrace democracies stand in clear contrast to those that have not. after all, the people of ukraine did not take to the streets because of some plot abroad they took to the streets because they had no recourse. they demanded change because they saw life get better for the people in the baltics, poland, societies that were more democratic and liberal than they are.
for those of us that believe in democracy, we need to speak out forcefully, because both the facts and history i believe are on our side. that does not mean our democracy are without fault. it means the cure for what impales our society is greater not less. in america, there is too much money in politics, too much and trans partisanship and too little participation. in part because of laws that make it too hard to vote. in europe, a well intentioned rustles often became isolated from the normal push and pull of politics.
too often in capitals decision-makers have forgotten democracy needs to be driven by civic engagement from the bottom up. so these are real problems. as leaders of democratic government makes the case for democracy abroad, we better strive harder to make and set a better example at home. moreover, every control what organize the government and circumstances of democracy. i recognize a traditional society may offer unity and cohesion, more than a diverse country like my own, which was founded upon what was a radical idea at the time, the idea of liberty of human beings and certain god-given rights. that does not mean ordinary people in asia or africa or the middle east somehow for
arbitrary rule that denies them a voice in decisions that can save their lives. i believe that spirit is universal. if any of you value that desire, listen to the voices of young people everywhere who call out for freedom and dignitary and the opportunity to control their own lives. this leads me to the third thing we need to do. we must reject any forms of fundamentalism or racism or a belief in ethnic superiority that makes our traditional identities irreconcilable with
modernity. instead, we need to embrace the tolerance for respect for all human beings. this has led to a collision of cultures. trade, migration -- all of these things can challenge and unsettle the most cherished identities. we see liberal society as expressed opposition when women choose to cover themselves. we see protests responding to western nation cartoons that caricature prophet muhammad. and a world that has left the age of empire behind. we see russia attempting to recover lost glory through force. asian power has laid competing claims of history. in europe and the united states, you see people wrestle with
concerns about immigration and ranging demographics and suggesting somehow people that look different are corrupting the character of our country. there is no easy answer for resolving all of the social forces, and we must respect the meaning people draw from religion, ethnicity, from the sense of nationhood. i do not believe progress is possible if our desire to reserve identity gives way to dominate another group. if our religion leads us to persecute those of another faith, if we jail or beat people who are gay, if our traditions lead us to prevent girls from going to school, if we discriminate on the basis of race or tribal or ethnicity,
then the fragile bonds of civilization will fray. the world is too small. we are too packed together for us to be able to resort to the old ways of thinking. we see the mindset into many parts of the middle east. leaders sought legitimacy not because of policies or programs, but by resorting to political opposition or demonizing religious sects, by narrowing the public space to the mosque where in too many places for -- perversions of a great faith were tolerated. these forces built up for years,
and are now at work for the mindless medieval menace, isis. the mindset of sectarianism and extremism and retribution that has been taken place will not be quickly reversed. if we are honest, we understand no external power will be able to force religious communities and ethnic communities to coexist for long. i do believe we have to be honest about the nature of the conflicts. our international community must continue to work with those who seek to build rather than those who destroy. it means destroying groups like isil. a also means ina
place like syria, where there is not an ultimate military victory to be one, we need to deliver aid to those in need and support those who pursue a political settlement and can see those who are not like themselves as worthy of dignity and respect. across the region's conflicts, we have to insist all parties recognize a common humanity and that nations fuel disorder, because until basic questions are answered about how communities coexist, the embers of extremism will continue to burn, countless human beings will suffer, most of all in that region, but extremism will continue to be exported overseas, and the world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies. and what is true in the middle
east is true for all of us. surely, religious traditions can be honored and upheld while teaching young people science and math rather than intolerance. truly, we can sustain our unique traditions while giving women their full rights and role in politics and economics of a nation. we can rally our nations to solidarity while recognizing equal treatment for all communities, whether a religious minority in myanmar, or an ethnic minority in burundi, or a racial minority here in the united states. and surely, israelis and palestinians will be better off if palestinians reject incitement and recognized legitimacy of israel, israel recognize that it cannot permanently occupy palestinian lands.
we all have to do that are as leaders in campaign dan rather than encouraging a notion of identity that leads us to diminish others. this leads me to the fourth and final thing we need to do, which is to sustain our commitment to international cooperation rooted in the rights and responsibilities of nations. as president of the united states, i know for most of human history power has not been unipo lar. the end of the cold war may have led too many to forget this truth. i have noticed as president that at times both america's adversaries and some of our allies believe all problems were either caused by washington or
could be solved by washington. and perhaps too many in washington believe that as well. [laughter] president obama: but i believe america has been a rear superpower in human history insofar as it has been willing to think beyond narrow self interest, that while we have made our share of mistakes over these last 25 years, and i have acknowledged some, we have strived, sometimes with great sacrifice, to align better our actions with our ideals. and as a consequence, i believe we have been a force for good. we have secured allies. we have acted to protect the
vulnerable. we have supported human rights and welcome scrutiny of our own actions. we have found our power to international law and institutions. when we made mistakes, we have tried to acknowledge them. we have worked to roll back harvey, hunger, and disease, outside our borders, not just within our borders. i am proud of that. but i also know that we cannot do this alone. and i believe if we are to meet the challenges of this century, we are all going to have to do more to build up international -- we cannot escape the prospect of nuclear war unless we all committed to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and pursuing a world without them. when iran agrees to accept constraints on its nuclear
program, that enhances the security and enhances iran's ability to work with other nations. when north korea tests a bomb, that bothers all of us, and those nations with these weapons, like the united states, have unique responsibility to pursue the path of reducing our stockpile and reaffirming basic norms like the commitment to never test them again. we cannot combat a disease like zika that recognizes no borders. mosquitoes do not respect walls. unless we make permanent the same emergency be brought to bear against ebola, by
strengthening our own systems of public health, by investing in cures and rolling back the root causes of disease, and helping poor countries develop a public health infrastructure. we can only eliminate extreme poverty if the sustainable moment goals that we have set our more than words on paper. human ingenuity gives us the capacity to feed the hungry and give all of our children, including our girls, the education that is the foundation for opportunity in our world. but we have to put our money where our mouths are, and we can only realize the promise of this institution's founding to replace ravages of war with cooperation if powerful nations, like my own, accept constraints. sometimes i am criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms
and multilateral institutions, but i am convinced in the long run, giving up some freedom of action, not giving up our ability to predict ourselves or pursue our core interests, but finding ourselves the international rules over the long-term enhances our security. and i think that is not just true for us. if russia continues to interfere with neighbors, it will diminish its stature and make its borders less secure. in the south china sea, a peaceful resolution of disputes offered by law will mean far greater stability than the militarization of a few rocks and reefs. we are all stakeholders in this international system, and calls upon all of us to invest in the success of institutions to which we belong.
and the good news is is that the many nations have shown what kind of progress is possible when we make those commitments. consider what we have a commerce here over the past three years. we have mobilized some 50,000 additional troops for u.n. peacekeeping, making them nimble, better equipped, better prepared to deal with emergencies. together we established an open government partnership so it empowers more people around the globe. and together, now, we have to open our hearts and do more to help refugees who are desperate for a home. we should all welcome the pledges of increased assistants that have been made at this general assembly gap. i will be discussing that more this afternoon, but we have to
follow through, even when the politics are hard. because in the eyes of innocent men and women and children, who through no fault of their own have had to flee everything that they know, everything that they loved, we have to have the empathy to see ourselves. you have to imagine what it would be like for our family, for our children, if the unspeakable happened to us. and we should all understand that ultimately our world will be more secure if we are prepared to help those in need and the nations who are carrying the largest burden with respect to accommodating these refugees. there are a lot of nations right now that are doing the right thing. but many nations, particularly
those blessed with wealth and the benefits of geography, can do more to offer a hand. even if they also insist that refugees who come to our country's have to do more to -- countries have to do more to adopt customs and conventions to communities that are now providing them a home. let me conclude by saying that i recognize history tells a different story than the one i have talked about here today. there is a much darker and more cynical view of history that we can adopt. human beings are too often motivated by greed and by power. big countries for most of history have pushed smaller ones around.
tribes and ethnic groups and nationstates have very often found that it is most convenient to define themselves by what they hate and not just those ideas that bind them together. time and again, human beings have believed they have finally arrived at a period of allotment only to repeat the cycles of conflict and suffering. perhaps that is our fate. we have to remember that the choices of individual human beings led to repeated world war. but we also have to remove or the choices of individual human beings created a united nations so that a war like that will never happen again. each of us as leaders, each nation can choose to reject those who appealed to our worst
impulses and embrace those who appeal to our best. for we have shown we can choose a better history. sitting in a prison cell, the young martin luther king jr. wrote that human progress ever roles on the wheels of inevitability. it comes to the tireless efforts of men willing to be coworkers with god. and in the course of the eight years, as i have travel through many of your nations, i have seen that spirit in our young people, who are more educated and more tolerant and more inclusive and more diverse and more creat