tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN November 21, 2016 9:00pm-12:01am EST
it is an eye-opening experience when you realize some of these challenges. we have spent a great deal of time not just recognizing those but actually being in a leadership position among federal agencies to be responsive to tribal needs. i am really proud of the work we have done. >> residence of a suburban st. louis community have been awaiting epa's cleanup plan for the westlake landfill that contains nuclear waste. the residents consider it hazardous. one of the cleanup plan be in place before you leave office, or will it be left to the trump administration? >> we have been working, i don't want you to think that because a plan which we call a record of decisions, a final decision, does not mean that we have not been hanging out and doing the work, because we have. we have done extensive work, remedial work to take care of the biggest challenges. i have met with some of the mothers from that area. we have talked about what we can do. i do not know the exact timing.
we are confident it will come soon. but i know that it is a specific concern of that community. we have been working with the state of missouri not just to address that landfill, but it is an area where this is not the only thing to worry about in terms of impact on the environment in that area. we have been doing an awful lot of work, looking at the area as well, as well as this small landfill. it is a big deal and we are being as responsive as we can. we will at the record of decision as quickly as we can. >> some are worried about a protective action guide regarding radioactive water. why is the epa proposing this, and does the protective action guide pose a risk to the public? >> there are two ways that we are looking at this protective action guide. and i will explain this from the viewpoint of someone at work at
state for 17 years. this guideline is a guideline to explain to states what they should do when an emergency happens, when there is a release of radioactive material, and how do you manage that situation, knowing full well that it will take time to resolve the situation? there is a guideline for water, but there is another large guidance document that we are hoping to get out soon, that talks about all of the other things states should do based on our recommendations, because we have quite a bit of expertise in this area. states have been driven crazy because it's been years that anyone has a hated it. and because they know that we have more at issue with radiation. we have little bombs that can happen.
we need to update it be we deserved to give them the information. we are in the finals of updating that larger effort. there is a smaller piece, which is the drinking water issue. let me tell you where this came in. i don't want anyone to think that we are changing our standards for drinking water. that is not the case. what we are trying to do is figure out how to actually start transitioning from a case where everybody is in their house and hunkered down and cannot drink drinking water, to being able to understand what exposures in a temporary way would allow life to continue, but not present a hazard to those individuals. so we are providing the best information we can in this transition days, not sending a signal that we think that those numbers should be the standard for drinking water. it clearly should not be. but we have to recognize you
cannot go from zero to 90 without figuring out how to start wrapping up again. how we provide the right recommendation. a lot of this information and concern came out of japan in the fukushima incident. it did not get resolved quickly. there were people that were left not knowing what to do. we thought that it was necessary to actually provide this information. again, we will see where it goes, it's in the process. we are doing the best we can to provide advice in a situation that we certainly hope nobody will have to face in the united states. >> since we are on drinking water, a recent report was critical of the epa's inactions on flint, michigan. what changes are underway to respond to the report and ensure the agency is more proactive in
similar situations, and what would you advise your successor to do in situations like flint? >> we certainly still have a large presence in flint. the good news is we have made a lot of progress but it continues to be a very challenging situation. we have learned some lessons. you will see shortly, we are coming out with a drinking water action plan. when flint happened, shortly after, we began national discussions with all of the stakeholders, because there are a number of shrinking cities like flint that have too large a system. when you have a large drinking water system, it is not a good thing because it means there is stagnant water in those pipes, and you do not want that. how we manage those situations will be important. one of the other lessons in flint, it is very clear that flint was a community that was this and that sit in -- disinvest it in, they lost their manufacturing base. their ability to eat economically manage the system is under threat. since we are getting it to the
levels and needs to be. we have handled that across the united states. how do we invest in infrastructure, not simply for new infrastructure, but how we look at the infrastructure that exist that is either decaying, too big, needs additional treatment, in the case of drinking water, and how do we move that forward. we have completed many rounds of focus groups. we have a plan that we are getting ready to release shortly. that will hopefully be a lessons learned and a path forward, not just to address lead and copper rules, which we know need to be updated, but also to figure out a path forward to look at how we begin the reinvestment, how much we need, and how we keep up with
drinking water and wastewater facilities. we have become very accustomed to not having to worry about drinking water and wastewater. we can no longer have that luxury. >> what is with the recent revision to the city of flint, and how would that reflect with how state and local agencies work? >> one thing we do is make sure that we have aggressive oversight. one of the enforcement orders was recently updated. we did an enforcement order about a year ago. we are doing one again. it is because the situation in flint is shifting. the city is making decisions about where it's horse water will come from. -- source water will come from. we just wanted to make sure that it was inviting. we needed a three months window to test any new water system and the ability of their treatment
facility to handle it because we did not want what happened before, which was, unbeknownst to us, the system is changed, it is not properly tested, not properly managed, and we ended up with a situation. so it is all the change in the order. it was not a surprise to either the city or the state. we are working with them very closely. if there is one lesson learned, when it comes to drinking water, you put it in writing and you make it as tough as you can. that is what that is. >> switching subjects, how soon can we expect the epa final report on hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, and whether this incorporates the recommendations from the science advisory board that the epa clarifies the conclusion that no systemic link exist between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination?
a mouthful. >> it is not easy to say. much easier to say fracking. we are looking at trying to wrap that up soon. i have certainly been advised about where we are now. we will be listening to the direction of the science advisory board. this was one science advisory board that was as fractured as the subject matter. it sort of came up with many different conclusions, some of which conflict with one another. we know what our job is and we will be finalizing that. while i cannot tell you the direction it is going to take, we are going to listen to all sides, in terms of what the members thought, and will come to the best decision we can. but again, remember, this is not a policy document, it is a science document.
there is some clear indication from the science advisory board that we needed to do a better job at explaining the science. while i have been briefed on it, it is my scientists that will make these decisions. >> let's talk about one of those disagreements, the consideration of a widespread impact. what do you consider the impact -- definition of widespread impact, and what impacts does the epa fined acceptable, and why? >> you are asking the same questions that many of the questions in the science advisory board revolved around. the purpose of the hydra fracking study, we were asked to do this and told to do this. the purpose of it was basically to identify -- look at the water cycle and identify what point in the water cycle, and in the hydro fracking operation, could pose a risk to drinking water. it was very clearly done in a way that it was just a science and technical document about what does the data show us, and what do we know. though the challenge for us is
to characterize what we know and to make sure that is not over characterized, that we know everything. our data is limited. how we project that and clarify that in this report is what we are going to accomplish. >> with president-elect trump openly admitting to denying climate change and likely pointing at an epa administered or who is a climate denier, what final steps are you making sure that communities are detected from fracking? will you meet with families from pennsylvania or wyoming when they say water has been impacted by fracking? >> epa folks in the regions have been working on this issue. we all know, and the president has said it, this inexpensive natural gas has been one of the factors that really changed the energy sector and how it is heading, but we all know it needs to be done save and responsibly. this report will be an opportunity for people to know where the impacts could happen, what we have already seen, so
that steps can be taken. at this point in the administration, that is what we are trying to accomplish, to be as clear as possible. >> without using the word "soon" when will the epa release its rules on greenhouse gases and infrastructure? >> i don't know. >> [laughter] >> so everyone understands, what epa has done, they have sent thousands of requests -- actually not request, we are asking for information that is consistent with our legal authorities to gather it, so that we can take that data and understand where methane is being emitted. so that we can continue to move forward on another rulemaking. but i do not have a timeline for this to be done. if you look at it, it will be done in phases, which will give information to the agency in a
few months. but it will give you to go on for a lengthy period of time. one of the things that people don't understand, when we do a rule where we regulate existing, we are looking at requirements that ask us not just what can you reduce but what other costs, what are the technology choices. in the area of oil and gas development, it's been going on forever. there are so many different types of pieces of equipment that are very challenging, and we want to make sure, when we do a rule, that it will be done well. so it is very challenging. and it can be done in phases or the next administration can make other choices. >> you are here to talk about what you did do at the epa. looking back, is there any climate or environmental action you regret not taking or not starting sooner? >> all of them. >> [laughter] >> the one thing i regret is, i know everybody knows that i had a fairly lengthy process of getting confirmed by the
legislature for this position by the senate. i also had a fairly lengthy time getting into the agency in the first place as assistant administrator. i think that is just because it takes a long time. one of the things i regretted was there was an announcement in the rose garden when the president stood up and talked about granting california its waiver, moving forward with the endangerment finding for light duty vehicles, which was the big first way which -- in which the agency began to use the clean air act to regulate greenhouse gases. i was really ticked off that i was not there. that is what i regret. i remember being at home watching it. that is mine!
>> what would you advise your state colleagues to do if the epa and congress, they believe, are working their interests or environment of goals? >> in any democracy, everyone has the right to their own opinion and their voices should be heard. epa has done, i think, over the past eight years, a wonderful job looking at what the science is, what the facts are. i think that folks should continue to speak, if they disagree, and don't think people are paying attention. that is the democratic process. >> do you think the, states, corporations can fill the gap left in leadership iraq is not doing it the right way?
>> i do. there are a lot of people who can confirm this. there are two reasons why i think progress will continue. there are many reasons why, but the two to answer this question -- number one, if you have worked at the local level, you cannot run away from people. you have to make decisions not based on politics but based on what your people are demanding of you, or you will be the shortest lived municipal servant in the history of mankind. people really are worried about the impact of climate. there are thousands of mayors who have signed climate pledges. they are working hard to we have provided tools for them to see how they would adapt to a changing climate. because they are afraid of wildfires, they are afraid of floods, they are afraid of
running out of drinking water, which is particularly frightening. these things are happening across the country. mayors will continue to speak up. cities will continue to be some of our best and loyal allies. on the state side, i worked for the states for more than 20 years, and i cannot tell you how much i am grateful for the work that we have done with the states and many of the folks here have been doing with them. we just saw a report from georgetown -- you are here somewhere -- the climate center there, vicki you are here. she must've run out. that basically said 19 states are continuing to make significant progress, consistent with the clean power plan, even working on plans, it energy efficiency standards. there is a reason that is.
that is because this is all about the energy transition that is already happening. when you want to buy renewables, they have been cheaper than ever before, the technology is more efficient. people want it. they are demanding it. energy efficiency saves money as well as provides opportunities to keep people's bills and costs of energy down. while i appreciate their big lift of continuing to do this, i know darn well that people are continuing to demand it. whether or not states want to go under the heading that they are taking climate action or sibley doing what is best for their consumers, energy systems, i am fine with that. that will continue. the clean energy economy, that train has left the station. >> millennials, the generation that every company seem to want
to capture right now, they see the demand for sustainable products. companies are responding. how can the government take advantage of this generational moment? >> let me tell you how we have all taken advantage of it. i think it is through our continued outreach. we are trying to make sure epa, because of its visibility, is a premier science entity. when epa puts its logo on something, it matters. that is why energy star products are out front. people want to save money and want to buy something they can articulate as being maybe a little bit more money, if at all, but how quickly they can get paid back. that is what energy star is all about. they get from billing when you put in and applies with an energy star label. we are doing the same thing with household products. that is what safer choice is all about. we continue to know and survey, but folks want to see that
label. they would rather buy it. what it does, it basically generates momentum among the chemical manufacturers themselves, to produce products that are less toxic, so they can get a label. there are ways to continue to get information out. the third area is work that i mentioned. there are so many ways in which individuals at the local level, millennials themselves, can actually get in the game here and change their own world. we have apps and new monitoring technology that is so inexpensive, that can tell them what their little world looks like, and how they may be able to work effectively in their own democracy, in their own city or community or neighborhood, to use information that we make readily transparent, that we analyze, that we help them with and make accessible.
that is where they can get active. i know you may not think that i'm this old, but in the 1960's and 1970's -- i look so young -- this is how we got involved. we did not just protest, we did something. we took action and became a part of the solution. i am thinking that that is what millennials actually like because they like to roll their own lives. >> the national press club is the world's leading organization for journalists and we fight for a free press worldwide. please visit our website at press.org. sir, i'm sorry, we are in the middle of a program. >> [inaudible] we beg you for a meeting. >> thank you, sir. >> where are you?
that is my neighbors water. no meeting with ms. mccarthy. ms. mccarthy, i am begging you, tell president obama, please meet with the resident before you leave. tell donald trump that he can come see it and drink it and breathe it in our neighborhoods. we will not tolerate it. we do not blame you, we do not blame the president. we blame the ignorance. >> this is a good example of how people continue to be passionate about having clean water and clean air. it bodes well for the continued mission of epa and the work we do. i wish we could be responsive and answer everyone's needs. >> thank you. we will present you with the
national press club mug. >> oh, cool. another one. >> i will ask you one more question. what advice would you leave your successor? >> my advice would be to listen to the great staff at epa. they are experts in these issues. they will give you an opportunity to lead. i suggest you take it. >> next, a conversation on presidential transitions and and on middle east politics
presidential security. sociologist examines data caninion and how be manipulated. coverage tomorrow from the wilson center. protest of the standing rock indian reservation in north dakota. >> this weekend, from lincoln's cottage in washington, we will have a conversation with candace whoer on the women influenced the civil war for better and worse. means ofe a
reinforcing the best or the worst in their husbands. film, american frontier. to the central office in oklahoma. telephoneght, the board was lit up like a christmas tree with calls from new york, california, and houston. this allowed them to know how big a thing this was. it was funded by the american petroleum institute. life ofs discuss the photographers and jack london. he influenced generations of western novelists and writers.
ande looked to his ranch reliefd himself to find and release from the rigors of the city. artifacts, we visit the military museum. the militaryt all aviators how to fly and many of them never saw the airplane the first airplane they saw was this experiment. c-span.org. >> a number of former chiefs of staff were participants in a discussion.
the council on foreign relations hosted this event. >> welcome to today's council on foreign relations meeting with joshua bolten, william daley, and mack mclarty. i won't go over their long biographies. the main thing you may want to know is that they have all served as chiefs of staff in the white house. we are so lucky because i cannot imagine people that know more about presidential presidential transitions. i would also like to welcome our members from around the world participating in the meeting through the livestream. we will hear from them during the question and answer session. i am also asked to let everyone know that the next meeting is on domestic security in the age of
isis on november 28. this is about navigating the transition. but there are a lot of transitions going on at once. there is the handing over of so many institutions from one set of hands to another. there is the transition that the president-elect has to make from being a candidate to being someone who governs. in this case, that is a big transition for someone who has never been in government before. and there is also the transition that all of the people around him have to make and that we as a country have to make from an intensely fought campaign to a moment of government when the choices are different. not everyone may want to make that transition. let me start with you, we have never had a transition quite like this.
the three of you probably have the closest experience. in early 1993, you and a governor from a small southern state arrived in the white house after 12 years with the other party in power. talk about that. how disorienting and transformative is it and what do you wish someone had told you? mr. mclarty: i survived, number one. it is good to be here. it is always a pleasure to work with cfr. i think you hit it just right. the real key to any transition is the hallmark of any working democracy -- a peaceful transition of power is pivoting from a campaign which was a highly contested one to governing. that is the key pivot that a transition entails. there is so much to do and so little time to do it. you have a number of stakeholders in terms of getting a government in place.
the cabinet, the white house staff. you have the press to engage with. you have got to be sure to remember those that brought you, your supporters. and you need to reach out and try to broaden the base. and then there is the members of congress, each of whom think they are a pretty important individual. in governor clinton's case, just like donald trump, you are stepping on the world stage for the first time and that is such an important and sacred step. there are all of these things to do with so little time. less than 80 days. >> what is the one thing you wish someone had told you? mr. mclarty: i kept asking jim baker to give me some granular detail on transitions, and he said -- you just have to be there. [laughter] >>josh, you are a transition legend. the handoff that you managed
from the george w. bush administration to the obama administration is considered to be very smooth. how much of that is something that would not have been the case if not for your experience on september 11? mr. bolten: first, thank you for having us and it is a privilege to be here. 9/11 had a lot to do with it. the tenor and the substance of the transition that we worked on as president bush was leaving office in 2008 was very much a product of the terrorist attack of 9/11 in the sense that president bush called me in probably a year before the inauguration and maybe even a little more.
and he said that he wanted to be sure that whoever was elected president, that his white house executed the best, most effective, deepest, most cooperative transition in modern history. in large part because this was the first transition in modern history during which there was a really keen sense that the homeland itself was under threat. this period of transition is a real point of vulnerability for the country. those of us who have either left the white house on january 19 or arrived on january 20, and i have done the former twice and the latter once, you know that the west wing is completely empty on the night of january 19.
there is nothing on the walls. there is nothing on the desks. there are computers but the hard drives have been taken. there is no one in any of the offices except for some watch people in the situation room and the navy people who serve the food in the mess. otherwise, it is completely blind. and so the people that come in to take over our government are doing it, at least as far as the white house is concerned and many other places are concerned, are doing it with a completely new team. and if the outgoing white house does not help the new one get as prepared as possible, there is a real moment of vulnerability for our country. >> do you think that window of vulnerability has closed somewhat compared to where we were on 9/11? mr. bolten: it has closed a lot.
there have been two waves of legislation that have made it much easier for candidates, two major party candidates, to begin the transition planning which used to be considered "measuring the drapes." it is now basically legally required which is excellent. as soon as the nominee has the nomination of his or her party, the gsa makes office space available, there is money available to pay staff. it is now in our law because of some really good work by a lot of groups including the partnership for public service, former senator ted kaufman, former governor mike leavitt, there is a kaufman-leavitt act which puts a lot of this in law. and now it is standard operating procedure to get prepared and to have the resources to get prepared hopefully without being accused of measuring the drapes. >> you have all of the resources there, do you have a sense that they have been used this time? are they being productively occupied?
mr. bolten: we will see. [laughter] i interacted with both the clinton and trump transition teams several months ago at an event sponsored by public service and they had a book and all of this kind of stuff. and i was impressed that the trump people seemed to be paying even more attention than the clinton people. possibly because the clinton people thought -- we have done this dozens of times before. the trump people were very serious and very professional
and very well prepared. i was optimistic about both. the concern that arose in my mind was that two days into the transition, the president-elect's team basically decapitated their transition team. they purged a certain number of folks who were associated with governor christie. and so took out some of the leadership of the transition that had been going through this training. they lost several steps. my sense now is that they have regained their footing. they have time. it is an enormous amount of work to do and it is a big scramble but hopefully they are well-positioned to do it properly. >> you have had the experience of going through confirmation as a cabinet secretary for commerce. talk a little bit about what that is like, to have your life examined and also how you as chief of staff saw the confirmation process playing out for other administration members. mr. daley: i doubt there are many people in this room or in this town who don't think that
the nomination process has gotten totally ridiculous. the amount of information, the number of people, with all due respect to the lawyers, this has gotten crazy. the whole process is unbelievably time-consuming, it gets people off track. it can destroy one's reputation for something minor and it always seems to be that way whether it is a cabinet spot or at a lower level. there are always -- to people that get the prize of being the target. >> there will always be somebody. mr. daley: you always hope it is somebody that gets identified before you get chewed up. i remember on december 13. the hearing -- i kept waiting every morning to hopefully see an article on somebody else. [laughter]
but it ended up almost being like an oral bar test. i remember one of the senators saying to me -- why do you seem so nervous? as i was going up to see them? and he said -- they really do not care what you say. it is the question they want to ask. and i kept thinking it was some sort of exam that i had to know everything. and basically, i think it was
john mccain -- he said they do not want to know what you know, but who you are. and the lightbulb went on and it was a different process for me. but it is no fun. >> let me ask you about another way congress might have a role particularly in this transition. a couple of names have been mentioned who would need a waiver, a statutory waiver because he has not been out of the military for that long. what is your perspective? mr. daley: i have enormous respect for his service to the country and he is a remarkable person. i personally think -- i think it
will be more of a fight than people think for that waiver. the last time one was done was for bradley marshall recommended by harry truman. it is not done often. and very often, presidents or presidents-elect think about a military person for defense because they are highly visible and highly talented. but they step back because there seems to be an inherent conflict in that. and so i personally think it may be too soon but i think, i assume, he will go for it, nominate him and probably win the vote because of the dynamics of it but i do not know if that is good precedent. >> one job that does not need confirmation is chief of staff. i wonder if you all have the impression that the chief of staff job as you experienced it is even going to exist in this administration. we have reince priebus and steve bannon who is simultaneously announced as the chief strategist, senior adviser. it is not really clear what the balance between those will be.
is that normal? [laughter] is that a good way to run a white house? [laughter] >> josh, why don't you start. mr. bolten: i was going to say yes, but the shorter and more correct answer would be no. [laughter] let me answer that -- no, it does not sound right, it sounds like a big mistake to have them announced -- to have the senior adviser and the chief of staff announced as co-equals in the white house. that on its face sounds like a real mistake. in the sense that you need the chief of staff to be the emissary to and from the
president. and only one person can really be the final word on setting the president's calendar, on deciding which issues will go to him in which format, on setting the strategic course for the white house. and very importantly, on reflecting the definitive word on what the president has decided. imagine a situation in which the president says something to his senior adviser -- ok, go and do that. and steve bannon says -- it means bomb iran. and reince priebus says -- it means he was mouthing the words to a beach boy song. >> is it more of an issue because of who steve bannon is? mr. bolten: it would be an issue anyway but the provocative past that he has makes it worse.
a note of caution. you can say that they are coequal and i think be setting up a rational structure if by coequal you mean they are coequal advisers to the president. that i, donald trump as president, will listen to these people equally and give their advice equal weight. that is not a problem. there are plenty of people in a white house who as private advisers to the president can have equal weight. i served as chief of staff when the senior adviser in that position, in what sounds like a similar position, was karl rove. president george w. bush had no closer, smarter, more astute and effective advisor then karl rove. and i would be the first one to say that if i were the president, i would probably listen more closely to karl rove's advice then i would to joshua bolten.
but there was no doubt when i served as chief of staff that when it came to running the white house, when it came to interpreting and executing the president's instructions, president bush empowered me to do that and not karl rove. if they mean coequal in the sense of advice, fine. if they mean coequal in the sense of equal authority within the white house, potential disaster. mr. daley: i would just add that i firmly agree with the way that joshua bolten answered that
question. we really do not know his management style yet. it is one thing to dismiss the analysis of coequal meaning i am satisfied with my base. instead of just saying reince priebus is chief of staff and he would get a lot of blowback from that, he satisfied that political problem he could have had. my guess is that is more likely the case. someone really has got to be responsible for the day to day. mr. mclarty: to build on what they have said, i think josh articulated how coequal could be viewed. every white house clearly has influence centers, more than just the chief of staff position. certainly, the vice president is a major player, the first lady always has influence regardless of the president and others including senior advisers. i think the real key to any effective chief of staff is it has to fit with the president. it is a position that has to fit hand in glove with whomever is the president and how he or she wants to operate the white house.
but the key is authority and responsibility. you have got to have the authority and responsibility and you cannot have people undercutting the management of the white house. and you would think that someone coming from business would understand how the chain of command and authority and responsibility might work. >> but going back to his management style -- one thing that we do know is that he relies a great deal on his adult children. there are nepotism rules meaning he cannot quite give them jobs but when you talk about authority, there is also an element of accountability. do we have models for this? is there a precedent for this? >> i don't think there is a precedent for adult children who also have a business they are
running. so far, it seems as though they will continue to run their business and take it over from their father. mr. daley: that is unprecedented. >> is it tenable? mr. daley: he won and he will be there for four years so it will be tenable. my guess is that it is fraught with potential, if not real issues, appearance issues if anyone cares. >> if anyone cares -- that is a big question. all of our standards and expectations of what makes someone confirmable, what is acceptable conflict of interest, moderation -- have those been thrown out a little bit in this transition, in this election? mr. daley: there is no question in my mind -- we have set a new
bar in this election, in this campaign. whether you want to say that we have taken it up or taken it down, the bar has been changed. we are in unchartered waters. no doubt about it. >> that is very kind. [laughter] >> do you recognize this transition process -- the parade of people to trump tower, the open acknowledgement of who the candidates are? >> it certainly is different. different then transitions we were involved in. whether it is good or bad could be debated but it is certainly different. mr. bolten: i like it and i think it is refreshing.
i came from an administration that held the names of people that were being considered very tightly. and it was a genuine secret until it was announced. each cabinet announcement that president-elect bush made at the end of 2000 and 2001. the obama folks handled things differently. they also kept it secret but then they would leak the name of the likely nominee a day or two before they planned to announce it to see how things went. which was a pretty smart way to do it. and everybody made it through i think. what the trump people are doing is very publicly parading folks -- >> a positive assessment. mr. bolten: i am doing my best. [laughter] let me say why. trump has promised to bring a new feel to governance and to
washington and if one of the new things that he brings is a greater sense of transparency and access, i am all for it. there is also something about the trump candidacy itself, about which many people were frightened. that it would be a narrow, noninclusive range of people that would be giving advice to the new president. and i think -- even if they do not pick some of these folks, i think it is great that we are seeing this diverse crowd including democrats, including mitt romney who said such horrible things about donald trump during the campaign and
donald trump about him -- i think it is great that we are seeing him go through the front door and being considered for secretary of state. even if he is not appointed. it suggests to me that there is an open-mindedness and a sensitivity to inclusiveness that was not evident to many people during the campaign. >> inclusiveness at the cost of them being for example a counterweight to donald trump and his policies and his philosophy within the republican party or without the republican party. you were very publicly a "never-trumper" for a long time. do you have reservations? people probably come to you asking if they should join the trump administration. it is a real question for people. do i stay outside and speak as loudly as i can about how i disagree or do i sign on with an idea that i could influence policy when maybe all i am doing is making it look prettier? >> that is a lively debate among establishment republicans which
i was not aware of. and a lot of people with whom i i served in the bush administration, especially some of the younger people whose time would be now to step into important positions of responsibility. i have told every one of them that if they feel they can go into a position in the trump administration without compromising major principles -- >> but, can they? mr. bolten: yes, i think they can. without compromising major principles, at least on a regular basis -- [laughter] -- will you go into government and you always end up doing things that you disagree with, there is no question about that. but certainly do not violate any moral principles. i do think people can go in and give this administration a
chance. these are all public spirited people. i think it is their duty to go in and serve and help make this administration the best it can possibly be. i am not ambiguous on that question. for most of the people with whom i served in government that strenuously opposed donald trump, i would be thrilled to see most or all of them serve in the trump administration. mr. mclarty: it will be interesting to see how he reaches out to the democratic side not only from the cabinet post but also from a legislative standpoint. how are you going to govern? even with the republicans having the majority in the house and the senate and the white house, you are still going to need votes from the democratic party to get much of your legislation passed.
>> would you like to speak to this? mr. daley: i would agree with josh in helping the government. i would say that if they came to me unless they were a close friend. [laughter] >> i wonder -- >> i guess i am not going to be encouraging bill to join the administration. >> i wonder if you, as part of that conversation, are talking to people honestly about how comfortable they feel with things like quitting, leaking if they see the trump administration, for all of the reasons that you opposed him, might go out of bounds. mr. daley: never leak. always be prepared to quit if you feel your law or your moral
principles are being violated but that is true no matter who the president is. i say to my former colleagues, give these folks a chance. as a republican, as an establishment republican, there are some very exciting prospects to the current configuration of governance. we have a real chance to do serious tax reform that has evaded us for 30 years. it has been literally 30 years since a major tax reform has successfully been done in this country. there is a chance to pull back on what we republicans think is a lot of stifling regulation. there is a chance to do infrastructure spending. i think there are remarkably
good things for the united states that can be accomplished in a trump administration. the administration needs good people to affect that good policy. and that is why i say without hesitation, go in and see what you can do. >> we have talked about inclusiveness in terms of bringing in other republicans or a democrat or two. this campaign in which actual ]bigotry has been on the table in a way we have rarely seen. how crucial is it that this transition make some gesture or show something about the question that for example, has been asked like what place do black americans or women have in donald trump's administration of america? think the burden is on the shoulders of the president's and have certain
appointments to convey the reaction and the challenge will and i think you can play,about actors in a that is a little different. >> let me ask a quick question to all of you. we are focused on cabinet positions, but there are thousands of jobs that have to be filled. non-cabinetp of the jobs we should keep an eye on. where is the administration heading? >> we talked about something the
ambassador knows a lot about. howe is a central issue and the organization is structured, it is a bellwether to how trump will proceed. it. have to think about nothing comes to mind. that do the work. , i cannot -- i agree with team willhe economic not be so much the treasury secretary, as the chair. eyegree and i will keep an and at thepointments
assistance to the president level, of which there are 15 level, they that are positions we are watching and they are people who will have the opportunity to speak to the president on a weekly, if not daily basis. >> say who you are and where you are from. >> julia moore with carlton strategies. what about the appointment of the presidential science advisor?
what kind of bellwether or signal will that sell of the incoming administration? ms. davidson: obviously, that goes to the climate change issue. who wants to take that? >> i can only comment about the clinton administration that vice president gore was so interested and knowledgeable about that subject including climate change, but science and innovation, research more generally, it would be interesting to see what kind of portfolio vice president pence takes on in this administration. it appears a pretty substantial one, may not be in the policy area as much as reaching out to the hill and taking over transition, as josh noted earlier. i think people will be looking at how broad gauged a trump is ministration is, but he, like every president, will have to prioritize coming in for the first 100 days, the first year. you cannot do everything at once, as much as you would like.
ms. davidson: either of you? >> i am a lawyer here. josh said the magic word, "confirmation." i saw this on the congressional side. i wanted to ask all three of you, with republicans controlling the senate, easy or hard a ride will nominees have in the senate, referring to cabinet officers. not the longer trail. ms. davidson: let us also talk about the supreme court nominees. >> no, please. [laughter] >> you can hold that question for later. just the u.s. cabinet officers. i include uscr in that. >> i would assume they will have a fairly easy time. generally one person will be grilled, there will be to tough hearings. center sessions will get a tough hearing. i would be surprised if
something comes up we have not seen that he will be denied, but you can pretty much be assured, and i think it is a good thing that presidents get the call if there is a close call, should get the call to put his people in to these spots unless there is some glaring issue, so i would be shocked if the vast majority do not go through rather quickly. ms. davidson: right there. >> thank you. arianna from foreign relations. you discuss whether or not you would advise friends and colleagues to serve in this government answered this president. for those of us in the military, we will be serving as president regardless of if we want to or not. given that my question is the advice that you potentially gave the president's you served about that transition specifically to
the role of commander-in-chief and if there is in particular we should be looking for to see whether or not this president takes that responsibility seriously. ms. davidson: that is a great question. we have a whole series of presidents who have never served in the military. then let start it and thoughts.his thank you for your service to our country. even though that 1992 campaign many years ago, it was the economy that had a real domestic focus. it becomes clear that i before the inaugural, when the football is passed, even well before 9/11, it it has become, i think, even so much more paramount and right before us, but that is the most sacred responsibility of the president of the united states, commander-in-chief, his security of the american people. i think trump talked about a lot of the military and security.
i would think that will be a high priority with him. i think he will engage pretty actively with the military. that is certainly the signal he has been sending. ms. davidson: do either of you want to add to that? let me follow up on that. we have had discussion about things like the definition of torture and we have heard before the election that there might be moments when people in the military would refuse orders they viewed as unlawful. what is your view on that? any experience you might have had thinking about those questions? josh? mr. bolten: i think regardless of who the president is, it is the responsibility of every person in uniform and all of the
civilian employees of the federal government who now number combined about 4 million, so it is quite a large number, it is the responsibility of everyone of those people the question and satisfy themselves that the directions they have been given are consistent with our laws and constitution, and if they are not, they should be disobeyed. that applies regardless of whom you are serving. ms. davidson: right there? >> matthew goodman. we talked a lot about personnel.
i wanted to ask about two other things that are part of this thing, policy and process. to what extent our policies shaped during the translation as opposed to prior to or after the transition, and to what extent is the process and mechanisms discussed and how much of that is important to the performance of an administration? >> you know the answer to your question. [laughter] >> i think both are shaped during transition without question. i think the priorities are set in terms of policy. in terms of the process, certainly, in our case, the president's relationship with the cabinet was really established during the transition with decisions that were made, and frankly, how the chief of staff position was set up during that transition process with the cabinet members. mr. mclarty: and we had a very active cabinet. i think that is very critical, very essential in all of that, i think grew out of the transition. it would be very interesting to
see how a president trump organizes his cabinet and what real authority those cabinet members have to implement policy. ms. davidson: we have heard sometimes elizabeth warren saying that personnel is policy. do you think that is why they have happened at the same time, when you're picking your people you -- mr. mclarty: you are sending a message. about, josh was talking in -- if he was to be picked as secretary of state, that is a very different from his message, and the policy i guilianiume than if in. mr. daley: or secretary bolton.
not this bolton. [laughter] mr. mclarty: no relevance. ms. davidson: not this guy. >> jean proctor. donald trump would be the first president elected without government experience. what advice would you have for him for dealing with how to better manage our government? ms. davidson: and maybe to narrow that down, specifically, what somebody who has never been in government would not know? >> know what you don't know. look, i am one who takes a different tack around even though i have spent much of my time in the private sector. this idea that a ceo is somehow therefore magically able to be a better president or as unique talent.
first of all, and i don't been this in a disparaging way, running a real estate and development company is not like running general motors or jpmorgan or some major institution with global and lots of thousands of people and management issues where you get the experience of actually managing a broad thing. mr. daley: it is a relatively small company. i don't think you can necessarily take those into it. i think it is a very difficult situation where you go from a privately owned and held company where what you think it's done, period, whether it is right or wrong, do it. and then you go to the government and say that, and everybody goes, [mumble.] [laughter] >> i think mr. trump's "art of the deal" will be tested. i think you raised a good question. even though donald trump comes from the private sector for business, he has had an unusual experience,dia
press experience. mr. mclarty: but the real problem -- maybe he enjoys it too much, possibly. >> a little bit of an argument, difference, i should say, not argument. can you envision president elect trump having a press conference for an hour, hour and a half? that is a long time. [laughter] >> if it is 140 characters, that works. in the traditional sort of, and maybe tradition is all out, but in the world president bush, president clinton, president obama, most modern presidents have dealt with, you know, having that sort of access by the media unfiltered. that is hard to envision in this administration. maybe that is good, maybe that is bad, i don't know.
mr. mclarty: we'll see, seriously. >> harry, world bank. i was wondering especially for bolton, you were there when the u.s. pulled out of kyoto. how is that decision made and how do you think the decision on paris will shake out this time? mr. bolten: i can answer the first part, but the second part, i would be speculating. it goes back to amy's earlier question, actually, to matt goodman's question about policy and process formulation. in the case of the early bush administration, the policy was set during the campaign. i was the policy director of that campaign and i started my work in austin, texas, in february of 1999, so almost two years before the inauguration itself.
and we developed a very serious broad and deep policy agenda that toward the end of the campaign, we ended up publishing into two books that hold up about 400 pages of president bush's speeches during the campaign and the fact sheets that backed them up. when we entered governance, we had a manual of what president bush's policies were and so, it was not in the transition, matt, that the policy formulation was done. it was done over the course of the campaign and i am very proud of my association with that campaign because that is the way that i think, at least i believe, that you would want the campaigns run.
how much attention people pay to that stuff, you know, -- ms. davidson: do you think there is a book like that for trump? mr. bolten: there is not. this was a different kind of campaign and we had the blessing in the case of the bush campaign, which is that much of the american people suspected that george w. bush is not bright. i knew different, the people close to him new different, but we had a political imperative to prove it. and so, it was a fantastic job to be in a campaign where we had to prove the policy of our candidate, political strategists were on board with that and the candidate was on board with that and we have -- we had a really substantive agenda when we came in. it was decided during the campaign that the united states would formally withdraw from the treaty that had been rejected by the senate. i forget with the vote was, 90 something to one or two or three. it put a punctuation mark on that and then to go forward with an agenda to address environmental and climate
issues. how the trump administration now goes forward with that, because you are right in your question, this was not a detail-heavy substantive campaign, candidly on either side, although hillary clinton was backed up with volumes of policy stuff, she did not really campaign on that stuff. did not seem to be what the american people were interested in hearing about. but they come in now with some sort of top line statements and then have the challenge of figuring out how to implement those, and so, in this case, the transition may be important to policy formulation, but i suspect that a lot of the policy formulation, it is not going to be possible to accomplish
without the personnel in place during this transition period and many of the details in the trump administration are going to be filled in in the early weeks of the presidency. i think it will be a very interesting, hopefully productive, time in american politics and policy, but it all does remain to be seen. >> i am curious. i am mitzi with the navy post-graduate school. i am curious how you feel about trump's desire to have his children get security clearances so they can sit in on the policy meetings that apparently they are going to run his corporate interests, and the connections he has overseas with corporate people, and they are going to stay at the trump hotel. i find it very disturbing. honestly, i don't know how other people feel about it, but somehow it does not seem to me as if it is right.
ms. davidson: who wants to start? >> first of all, i think the trump transition team has been very emphatic in saying no one has requested security clearance for the children, for his children. so, i think that was speculated about, unrealistically considering the closeness of all of them. mr. daley: i think the president elect's daughter sitting in on the meeting with abe is a different story. on the one hand, that is great, he is close to his children. but i think we are in unchartered waters having
adult children who have a real business interest with him. they will have to work through that. and honest conflict ends up resulting in some major issue. i would hate to be white house counsel, i would tell you that. [laughter] >> is he basically going to have to choose between having his children around him and his children still being involved in the business? is that what it is going to come down to if he wants? ms. davidson: does the whole family have to divest in some way? distance themselves from the management? >> this is totally unprecedented. you never had this kind of dynamic with a large business enterprise privately held, children of those ages that have been active in the campaign, and how do you, and square all of that up and particularly in this day of 24/7 news cycle. bill have got it right. you have got to give this a lot of serious thought and somehow draw some lines and definition
where i think it will be potentially a serious and almost overwhelming issue, ongoing issue with the american public, and i think you are going to have to address it in a very careful, thoughtful, serious manner. as far as his children being advisors, obviously, robert kennedy is the example many of us think of, but that was a very fun time and place and legislation has been passed since then. josh had spoken earlier before george w. bush was president, he was an informal adviser to his father, but on the outside, not the inside. i think if jared kushner, for example decided to take a white house position and leave the business interest, that probably could be accommodated in one way or another. those are just major issues that
in my view must be addressed and resolved in a very serious manner. >> cutler, u.s. foreign service. former. since we are at the council on foreign relations, focus on foreign policy. over the course of years, the nsc has grown from a handful of people, more than 400 now. it is a big bureaucracy in the white house. how important is this in the terms of transition? also, should this be coordinated with the election of secretaries of state and defense and others? ms. davidson: that is a great question.
josh, do you want to take this question? mr. bolten: i think the nsc has gotten too big. agencies feel like they are being micromanaged, which is not what the white house ought to before. the white house ought to be there to set the direction of policy, to tee up issues for decision by the president, and to coordinate among agencies when they disagree, as they often do in the foreign policy area. my own view is that that coordination, the role of team things up properly for the president is possible with the smallest number of people who are well-informed, understand each other and understand the agencies with whom they are interacting, and have a good relationship with those agencies. i mean, there is thousands of important decisions made in government every day. only a few of them deserve to be considered at the white house. the white house ought to be focused on those things. my advice to the trump transition would be, if you can manage it, if you can figure out how to pry those folks out of there, reduce the size of the nsc, and rely on the state department, defense department, the cia, all the more. those 400 people, having been the budget director, and having been chief of staff, i know those 400 people do not show up in the budget of the president. every president wants to show that they are, you know, even tighter with the taxpayer's dollar than the previous ones. the clinton folks did this. they announced they were cutting
the white house staff by 20 or 30% when they came in, but what they actually did was they took a couple of agencies that had been considered part of the executive office of the president and moved them out of the executive office of the president. whammo! 100 people left but turned out to be working for the white
house. you staff the nsc and force department and it.yone else to pay for it is a preposterous situation. >> do i get rebuttal time? one big, quick add-on. i think josh has got it right and i would agree on most of his points there. i think, while you make a very good point about the nsc, i would say how economic trade policies were to be coordinated, there is so much integration now between traditional foreign-policy issues and international economic issues that they have to be carefully coordinated at the white house, but it really goes to how effectively are you going to use your cabinet and how much you are going to put in the white house. that goes to josh's point. ms. davidson: let us go to the
back, the very back. >> can i add a footnote that he has brought to mind with his wisdom? the national economic council and the domestic policy council, which are the counterparts supposedly of the nsc and the white house, operate in each case with about 1/10th the staff that the nsc does. >> good evening. on this problem of a conflict of interest, isn't that a ticking time bomb if you think about it? the president operating one of his hotels out of a government building? he owes money to the bank of china, deutsche bank, and there were reports every day pointing to the problems.
how damaging could that be and how should he address this right now? ms. davidson: this is the financial transition. i don't know who wants to start with it. the wall street journal recommended that he liquidate everything. [laughter] >> you know, he is president elect, not president yet. he has nine weeks to figure this out. they have got to figure something out. they cannot stand there at the capitol and be sworn in and not have some game plan that will be
implemented by then. so i think it is a big problem, as we talked earlier. i think, whether it will be credible or you will think it is credible or not, or the american people do, will be known to everyone how this is going to work. ms. davidson: i think we have time for one more quick question. let us take it right here. >> thank you for being here. christine vargas, control risks. laissez-faire in play, minorities are worried for their safety, especially with a laissez-faire attitude toward a lot of heat crimes being tracked -- hate crimes being tracked by the southern poverty law center. what can we see in policy if they are confirmed as well as how you think the country will react? ms. davidson: who wants to start with that? [laughter] >> mack? >> here is my opinion. we will have to wait and see. the president said certain things about policy, and whether he is able to implement them, whether it is to build the wall, deport 2 million people or 20 million people. you have got to see that develop. i do not think we should assume. i think the republic will be fine.
it will be different and elections -- >> is that one part of the function of the confirmation process? is that where some of these, not just waiting and seeing, but you said sessions would go through easily. foris this the moment him to be pushed? >> the president confirmed. it starts with him. he has been confirmed. >> well, you raise a very serious and topical question for sure. and i think what you hear from josh and bill and me is basically, let us give the president elect, whether we supported him or not, an opportunity to go forward with his policies and with his cabinet and white house team and people. certainly, president-elect trump's first public comments after his election were a positive and unifying. i think the vast majority of this country has respect for the
individual dignity of each individual, a sense of fairness, and what is called for now is to unify the country. and if the president elect and the president is not successful in doing that, he will not have in my view a successful presidency. ms. davidson: josh, five seconds to add to that. mr. bolten: i can say in five seconds, i do not think i can improve on what bill and back just said. ms. davidson: think you for taking part in this meeting. [applause] [indistinct conversation]
-- >> president obama words the presidential medal of freedom to recipients at the white house. robert de niro, robert redford, diana ross, bill and melinda gates and others. plus nasa engineer margaret hamilton. watch here on c-span at 2:30 p.m. and then the curriculum of western civilization, live fromage at noon eastern the family research council. >> this weekend on american
history tv on c-span3, saturday eastern, we:00 p.m. will have a conversation about a wiveslincoln's generals -- for women who influenced the ." il war for better or worse >> these women have a means of reinforcing either the best or worst in their husbands and this is what this studies is. to therom the field production office, to the central office and oklahoma. day and night, our little telephone toward was lit up like a christmas tree. calls from new york, california, houston. and by bed we began to realize how big of a thing as was.
announcer: the film was about leasing oil for -- land for oil expiration and was funded by the american oil institute. jack london and how his novel "the call of the wild" influenced generations of novelists and writers. >> he always looked back to the beautiful scenery of california and elsewhere in the south pacific to center himself in and find release and relief from the rigors and the degradations of the cities. hand later, the american aviation museum in virginia each. >> this airplane basically taught to all of the military corps, andrmy, air navy.
many had never seen a plane. the first airplane they saw was the boeing starman. announcer: for more information go to c-span.org. >> former secretary of state madeleine albright and others were part of a discussion about middle east politics and security. this 90 minute talk is hosted by the workings institution. >> good afternoon, and welcome, on behalf of the brookings institution foreign policy program and on behalf of the atlantic council. i'm deputy director of foreign policy at brookings. i would like to extend a special welcome to my counterparts from the atlantic council rejoined us here today including the deputy director and ambassador richard lebaron.
i would like to extend a special welcome to our distinguished guests on the diplomatic community. we are here to discuss a report written by my colleague, who over the pastor has convened the task force is working group on politics, governors, and state society relations. this is one of five such groups organized by the middle east strategy task force, a bipartisan initiative launched in february 2015. brookings foreign policy has been proud to contribute to the task force project through the security and public order working group whose report was offered last year by our -- authored last year by our brookings colleague kenneth pollack. the report you have before you today is informed by tomorrow's many discussions of the working group and reflects your own analysis. it helps explain the collapse of the middle east states system, take stock of where we are now, and offers recommendations for tackling the crisis of governance in the middle east in the post arab spring environment.
with years of deterioration state society relations. tomorrow argues that for the region to develop societies that are resilient to terrorism and institutions that are effective and responsive for the long-term, there must be a concerted effort to repair trust between governments and their citizens. dialogue is needed, as his patients and to stand up for some of the regional actors including the united states. these are words of wisdom that echo broadly in washington here today. as the title of this event suggests, real security and stability in the arab world will be determined by the quality of
governance that takes hold there. i encourage you all to read the report and to share your thoughts on the report and on today's discussion the at twitter, using the #governance. the report was cochaired by two of our panelists, former secretary of state madeleine albright and former national security adviser stephen hadley, two individuals who need no introductions, individuals who know a little more about individual security. we are delighted to have them on our program. we will speak with tomorrow about the report. secretary albright will present some introductory remarks and then we will turn it over to the panel. finally, we will invite the audience to contribute and ask your questions and engage in the discussion. thank you so much, and welcome, secretary albright. [applause]
ms. albright: thank you very much, suzanne. it's a pleasure to be here to have the opportunity to share this with brookings, thank you very much for hosting this. i think, as you pointed out, one of the things that really distinguished the atlantic council's middle east strategy task force. it truly is a collaborative effort and i think that as we talk about it today, i think that will become even clearer. but it really was terrific in terms of just working together. i enjoyed it very much. i think also, just as we engaged a multitude of institutions in the project, we also tackled a multitude of issues in the working groups that we established. the working groups did produce the papers, so today we are releasing the fifth and final one on governance. lest you think this completes our work, i want to announce that after we all take a break
for turkey eating, and cooking in my case, steve hadley and i will be publishing our final cochairs report next wednesday. that report is going to attempt to knit together the topics tackled by each of the working groups and enter a new long-term approach for the region based largely on ideas from the region is dealt. our sense has been that we have all spent a lot of time looking at the region, but a lot of it has been kind of fire drills and band-aids and that basis of what were doing is taking a much deeper and longer look. while we have time next week to address our broader strategy, today's discussion really involved one of its most important components. we will be talking specifically about how, in order to find a way out of the crisis in the middle east, the states in the region will need to address failures of governance.
and of course the problems brought about by the lack of accountable, responsive, and effective state institutions in the middle east as is so well known to people in this audience. the role has been downplayed and what you will hear is that governance is in fact a central cause of the turmoil in the middle east, something with which i heartily agree. as she puts it, the amending of the region doesn't come from outside intervention, nor does it come from the top. it really did come from below, for millions of frustrated people whose expectations far exceeded the opportunities that were available to them. as we have seen over the past five years, it's far easier to identify the cause of turmoil than to find a solution, and not for lack of trying, but i really
do think we have to keep that in mind. the first challenge in any journey is to have a destination in mind. for the people of the region, i've convinced that this destination is governance built on the foundation brought in stable enough to last, and that by definition, governments that have the trust of their citizens respect their rights and respond to their needs. as suzanne mentioned, tammy's paper offers a framework or how the region can begin building toward such a model of sustainable governance and argues that this work has to begin now, no matter what else is going on. there are many in the region and in the united states who have a different view, and they argue that these questions of political development can only be addressed after nations achieve security and prosperity. i happen to believe that political development and economic development need to go together. i know that all of us in very as forms of graduate school would
argue which came first and which came second. the reason i say that is because people want to vote and eat, so the governments have to deliver. and they also want to live in peace. one of tammy's main arguments is that the security depends on responsive and accountable governance, and this raises some tough questions about u.s. policy, including whether we still have the ability and responsibility to exert leverage on these issues. with the transition underway in washington, the answers are more uncertain than they have been in the past, and it are pointing out that for more than a century, stability in the middle east has been understood to be the responsibility of an external power, where there was the british empire or the united states of america. yet according to the president of the united states, until stable governments are set up and supported locally, the middle east will never call down. that pronouncement came from the white house, not barack obama,
but of dwight eisenhower in 1956. over the decades, we've learned not to expect miracles, even though that is where they are supposed to come from in the middle east. we have also learned not to give up. while the united states remains, in my mind, the indispensable nation to the security of the region, i'm always quick to point out that there's nothing in the word indispensable that means alone. so after a time in which the u.s. has been accused of doing too much and into little, we need an honest discussion about our role and relationships and responsibilities, and that's why i'm so pleased to be part of this middle east strategy task force with my very good friend, steve hadley. it's been an extraordinary learning experience for both of
>> thank you for being here. let me begin by thanking my fantastic cochairs, steve hadley and madeleine albright. when we started this project, steve and madeleine told each of us working group chairs not to be afraid to ask the questions and to challenge our assumptions. i think recognizing that in the middle east, this is a moment of truly historic transition, and i think the questions of for the region and for those of us outside who care about the region and have a stake in the region, that questioning of assumptions is even more important today than it was when we started the project, so i really want to thank you both for a fantastic process.
i want to thank my fellow working group members in the region and all over the u.s. and europe, we managed to meet virtually and in person and i learned a great deal from all of them. they are listed in the report, so i hope you will take a look and share my appreciation. it may seem as though today's topic is an odd choice for focus, maybe it's not a propitious time to talk about governance in the middle east, after all, we are dealing with the region in violent turmoil, beset by vicious civil war. the u.s. and its allies is invested in new military conflicts in iraq and syria, fighting isis. i just came back from an
international security mission up in halifax, where the only discussion of the middle east there was framed around terrorism, isis, civil war, and refugees. these are the urgent problems seen by many governments around the world as a threat to international security, deservedly so, and that are drawing attention to the region. but it's precisely because of those urgent challenges that i think it is valuable to focus in this report on governance in the region, because to my mind, isis and the civil wars are symptoms of something bigger. they are symptoms of a broader breakdown in the region. they are not the disease. what we have seen beginning in late 2010 was the breakdown both of individual states and the state system in the middle east that had lasted since the eisenhower administration. the state system that had advantaged american interests and those of our regional partners, the system that the united states sought to defend. it's that breakdown of the middle east order that has led to the civil wars in libya and yemen and syria and the rise of isis.
so understanding why and how this regional order broke down i think is necessary to understand how we effectively deal not just with the symptoms of that breakdown, but with the challenge of restoring lasting stability to this region, and that is the premise and the driving question of the report that we are releasing today. so let me focus on just three things about that breakdown that i think it is important for us to understand, and what they suggest about the task ahead. the first thing to understand is the regional order broke down because of things that happened inside states, inside societies, because of the pressures that built up over many years. the first part of that story is the story i told in the book that i published in 2008. it's the story of how the bureaucratic authoritarian model in the arab world began to weaken, the ideology that the states relied on to survive were becoming less and less effective in a globalized world.
they rested on a certain kind of social contract, a patronage-based contract. over time, these systems became more and more efficient and then they were challenged both from within and without from a of youngic bulge of adulthood,cusp from the effects of the globalized economy, and from a radically new information environment prompted first by satellite television and then by the world wide web 1.0 and 2.0. and so the effect on citizens in these countries was that the expectations created under the old social contracts could not be fulfilled in these changed
conditions. just to give you a couple of indicators of this, the egyptian government had promised that university graduates would be able to get a civil service job. by the early to thousands, the weight time for those university graduates to get those civil service job was on average, eight years. that's eight years of pushing a food cart or driving a taxi or twiddling your thumbs, waiting for your life to begin. and in the meantime, you can't afford an apartment, you can afford to get married, you can't afford to become a full adult participant in society. the second thing to understand about the why and how of the breakdown in the middle east is that no one in the run-up to the arab uprising was unaware of these challenges. that is a very important thing to understand, how governments dealt with these challenges actually ended up in many cases
exacerbating the problem, rather than resolving them. we had a lot of talk and many efforts in the 1990's and to to promote reform of governments and reform of economies in the middle east. but when many arab governments sought to adjust that social contract, they ended up, instead of developing a more inclusive social contract, negotiating adjustments for political and economic elites, whether within their own country or external institutions like the world bank and the imf. they reduced government hiring without really liberating the private sector to create growth. they brought new business cronies into the ruling parties
instead of opening up politics more broadly, and result of these kind of adjustments exacerbated inequality, further empowered some at the expense of others and really increased the grievances rather than resolving them. and so dissent increased, government moves to manage politics were weaker, and the protests row cap it would this brings me to the third thing we have to understand about how this all happen. the consequences of how certain states broke down. when the protests came, many governments responded poorly, in ways that exacerbated divisions, collapsed state institutions, and some governments responded with violence, in ways that generated demand for more violence. so syria and libya are the places in the region that are most violent and most disorder. these are the places where leaders ruled in the most personalized manner, where the destruction of civil society and community institutions were the making of those same and where the state was most complete.
so having failed to act in a manner that could've prevented these uprisings, the leaders to impose their will to gain power. when the state's power against its citizens, it created a market for others with guns to defend them against the state, and that allowed the emergence of identity-based sectarian militias, extremist groups with horrific agendas. by the time these governments had broken down, the social contract had broken down and
social trust, the basic trust between people in communities had eroded. there is very little left to manage peaceful politics. this is the challenge we confront today in the middle east. beyond the political competition between iran and saudi arabia, beyond the threat by extremist terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, this is the biggest challenge in rebuilding a stable order in the region, it's the breakdown of trust within society. it's a consequence both of the way they were governed and the way they broke down. the paper goes into detail on all these subjects and offers specific priorities and approaches on a way forward to tackled a problem. let me just give you a few highlights here. first, the future of the region will be determined not by the mere existence of government, although that's what many are focused on, but on the quality of that governance, because if we don't have more accountable, responsive, transparent and effective governance, it will not be sustainable governance.
it will face more challenge and breakdown again. conflicts that are suppressed will reemerge. so we have to think about the quality of governance, not just the fact of governance. it's probably no surprise to any of you that i think democracy is far more likely than it -- any other regime type to generate the effective governorates, but where the region is today and liberal democracy is neither swift nor linear. the ambassador can testify to that. the paper lays out a few practical ways to begin rebuilding the basis for that kind of sustainable governance.
let me just mention two tea insights. first, i don't think the question regarding how to build this new order is about territory or state borders or where lines are drawn on a map. it's about what happens within those lines. remember, it is about social trust. there is no line you can draw between shia and sunni in iraq that will not be fought over. just as the creation of south sudan did not magically resolve the conflict inside sudan. it's also not about institution building. after our military victories in iraq and afghanistan, our allies and the u.s. spent a lot of time setting up new institutions, central banks, and the idea is that you build a machine of government and populated and you start the gears turning and it should go. but i think we
learned from the last 15 years that building institutions is not enough. it matters how those institutions are populated and by whom. are they inclusive of everyone with a stake in the process? do they have a process that people think is fair and transparent? that brings me to the other insight that i want to leave you with before we have a broader conversation, which is that what is most important to effective, sustainable governments, to effective, sustainable in the middle east today is dialogue and conflict resolution. it seems like an obvious thing to say, the old line that war is a continuation of politics by other means, but it is true. and i think it's a basic beginning aspiration for the future of the middle east to
shift conflicts that are now underway in a violent channel into a nonviolent channel, and also to pay special attention to take back the assumptions to those places where political conflict is being suppressed, where dialogue is being -- prest, or fear that those is beingsue prest, -- suppressed, for fear that both places may become violent if there is no room or no capacity or institution and forums for people's dialogue and peaceful politics. finally, it suggests to me that sustainable governance in the middle east in the future will be much more decentralized than it has been in the past. because you don't rebuild social trust from the top down, you rebuild it from the bottom up. there is a broader need to build governance in a way that citizens can see and feel and buy into. i think we already see a number of experiments across the region in more decentralized governance, whether it's the empowerment of elected councils
in morocco or the way the lebanese have managed in the absence of a president until very recently. or where the government in baghdad is struggling with conditions for locally effective government in the areas that are about to be liberated from isis. so, i think local governance is what we need to focus on if we want to replace violence and mistrust with something more sustainable. with that, let me stop and i look forward to our conversation. >> let me just say it a word. thank you, tammy, very much. it's a great paper and i really do urge you to read it. here's what we're going to do for the rest of the time. we will have a reaction to the paper giving you a little sense of what is in it and then we will have a conversation up here with some broad questions, and we will go probably until
about five minutes of 4:00 or 4:00, then we will throw it open for questions and comments from the audience, and we will end at 4:30. that's how we plan to use the time available to us. >> thank you very much, steve. it's a pleasure to be here. thank you very much, tammy, for having me on the panel. it's a pleasure to join the panel today. it's a good paper, i would like to congratulate you and the working group on a spot on analysis and great insight in how to look at middle east politics and political dynamics as they are today. i am going to follow steve's recommendations and recommend everyone to take a look at the paper. it offers a detailed analysis.
it does not stop where tammy stopped merely because of time and engages you, of course. it gives us a great overview of what is been happening since the 1960's all the way to 2011 and beyond 2011. in that spirit, i'm going to underline three points which i feel are relevant in building on the insights and recommendations. number one, and with regard to lost trust between state institutions and settlements in the region. it covers a very wide spectrum. all the way from republics to monarchies. some that have been doing better economically and some that have
been suffering from poverty, unemployment, corruption and so forth. clearly we had not been having a lot of popular trust in state institutions and that had been happening and unfolding in the background in middle eastern society. rather than alternative institutions, we did see fashion alternative institutions. [indiscernible] between religious-based visions and secular visions. we did see a bit of political confrontation based on political and socioeconomic preferences which you offer a great analysis of an conflict have-nots. haves and
but this did not add up to an alternative vision for state society relations. an alternative vision for a new social contract. so what we were looking at were social contracts which were collapsing and social contracts which have yet to be fleshed out. and i believe the picture is not changed in the last five years. and the very fact that we are ,till looking at a talker sees devising autocracies, or limited liberal experiments as we've seen in morocco and elsewhere. the very fact that we're still at the region, the dynamics of the years , we have a new social contract attached to that.
number one is how to bridge the between populations and citizens groups who have lost us. of socialuestion capital. accumulatessociety social capital. it is never top-down. it has to be bottom up. we look at the fabric of eastern societies -- i'm not an expert on iran, when we look at arab imagine the only way to it is leading to new social contracts. it is the focus on society. stateare looking at
institutions where trust has been lost. have a person who can ask, offer visions, we will movements inle most arab countries. tunisia is unfolding in a different manner. that has been one of the leading forces pushing the country experience ofrue democratic governance. what are the conditions available? here i would like to highlight two key points.
in most arab countries, we are still looking at constitutional frameworks which do not safeguard the economy of civil society acts. which undermines the autonomy and independence of citizens. there is a great deal of state control, and secondly, you can see that constituency building is not well regarded in most arab countries. there is not a comparable outreach with any democracy, either western or non-western democracy. we will not get to real security
if we do not fix government issues. the two key issues we have to look at our how to put in place the right conditions for civil society organization to represent people's interests, different segments of the population, and a new social contract which is needed in most arab countries. secondly how to safeguard key , freedoms, which it is no longer fashionable -- in spite of the fact that this is one of mostegions which suffers .rom violations of freedom the second point i would like to underline is, once again going to a great insight that tammy offered in the paper with the working group, one of the
recommendations that tammy articulates toward the end of the paper, the way i understand the report, it's forming security sectors, judicial institutions as well as the paradigm of low importance. it's not the great political impact, it's about citizens and have a look at state institutions, state security institutions, police stations, police officers, at the military security institution governing the country.
and to build on the analysis in the paper, number one, and here the internal actors can help, those outside the middle east can offer some help. number one is to look at arab institutions and those in place governing, security sectors, military establishments, and getting them to reflect the key values of what democracy is all about. accountability and transparency. if you follow egyptian events, for example, we've been hearing about -- this is not a new phenomenon.
-- citizens, at least two, who lost of their lives in police custody. this is not a new phenomenon. in egypt it keeps happening. , there are two cases in the last 48 hours or 72 hours. this want again is a testimony to -- as long as were going to lack accountability and transparency, citizens will continue to have no trust in government, even if they are democratically elected. to push lawmaking in the direction of accountability. once again, civil society actors need help. we sometimes see a complete collapse. it's not only a domestic set of actors, it's the actors and europe and elsewhere. it can be a nongovernmental organization.
these actors facing evacuation -- the final point, i believe it will stay fashionable in the u.s. for some time. civilian and non-civilian politics. when looking at questions of governance in the region, white is important to differentiate and spend some time comparing indonesia to egypt or morocco, comparing different countries where we have civilian
politicians and civilian elites with all the different political arenas. pushing forward consensus building, ideological advances, where citizens can hold the government accountable. one key distinction when you look at arab countries in 2016 is a difference between countries where the military security establishment is the dominant force in politics and those with civilian political dynamics.
we have a track record of civilian groups accepting more compromise, so this has to be a focus when you look at governance and how to push forward democratic government and your paper says that. i will stop here. >> thank you. mr. hadley: thank you very much, i want to ask one technical question because i think i was misled by that. i want to make sure the audience isn't as well. you use the phrase privatizing justice. of course, i had the notion of, you know, the private sector taking over the police, but i think what you mean is a transparency and accountability that allows citizens to hold those institutions to account.
>> exactly. we've talked about --, and i want to pick up on something amr said, you talked about the failures of states to govern effectively led to the collapse or civil war in iraq, syria, and libya. -- are other states in the region at risk? have we seen the last of the dominoes, or are there other dominoes that potentially could fall, and if so, what will bring that about? tammy: that is a crucial question, because for all that are international attention is focused on the eggs that have already fallen off the wall, others are up there wobbling, and there have been another of analytical attempts to sketch
out what those broken neck have in common you seen some arguments about republics being more vulnerable than monarchies, for example. what i see in the places that i would say today are still vulnerable, it's those places where, as we saw in egypt, you have an aging leader with no clear secession plan, and certainly no transparent, accountable, responsive mechanism for determining succession. those are potential crisis points for any government, and we've just been undergoing our regular exercise in the peaceful transition of power here. it is always a delicate moment, even for the most established democracies, but in those places that don't have established tradition, it can be a very dangerous moment. so i would look for example at algeria, where you have an aging
leader who has been in place for a long time, and no evident successor and no evident process for a way forward. you could say the same about the palestinian authority today. so you have a looming succession crisis and no connection between citizens and government, where they don't feel like there is any channel to weigh in. that is a boiling pot. >> would you agree with that question work >> yes, very much. tammy is right in pointing out the historical precedent. egypt was in a succession crisis with salt of the country being who's going to succeed former president mubarak?
steve, when you look at that, what is missing is not only who the establishment is putting forward as a succession plan of sort, but what's missing as well is how to tackled the loss confidence between government and citizens. in tunisia, confidences undermined because they managed to put institutions in place. you still have a constitution framework that makes sense. what is missing in egypt once democracy was back in, this was attempted after 2011 and was blown away. we're between 2011 and going back to many dark moments in election history. -- in egyptian history. in places like algeria, no one knows what will happen.
mr. hadley: it's interesting because the places you picked were algeria and the palestinian authority. those are not traditional monarchical societies. one of the things you may remember when we started this project, we said this is about a crisis of legitimacy in the middle east and we said legitimacy comes from consent of the governed. this is not sophisticated enough. there are other forms of legitimacy in the region based on religious affiliations, revolutionary ideology. there are a range of forms of legitimacy. how do you square that? as we look at the middle east going forward, past 2011, what do we say about legitimacy, and what do we say to these regimes that may be teetering on the shelf but have not fallen off. what in the post-2011 world,
what would you recommend to leaders as to how to enhance the legitimacy of their regimes before they go through what these other countries have gone through? ms. albright: i think we have to remember what it is. tammy mentioned social contract a lot. i think people think of it as a western concept, but basically people gave up individual rights in order to get protection and security in some form. obviously that is different with a monarchy. but still, there is that same responsibility of what is it that the leader owes his people? when you were asking about different countries, i think those are interesting ones that were picked, but i would say that this is almost like a virus, and one of the things we have not talked about enough is the influence of technology. one of the things that really
did -- it starts with a man in tunisia who immolates himself, and the news gets out and all of a sudden it's spread. clearly what happened in tahrir square was social media. i hate to finger any country, but when you look at a country , like jordan, for instance that , is a monarchy, frontline state in one of the most difficult refugee situations, not a rich place, and a king who is trying to figure out the various coalitions and kind of a transit point, and it goes to the very point of whether the state is
providing a livelihood to the people. i think that one of the things, and you write about this a lot, tammy, in terms of what is it that the state owes the people? initially, in all of these countries, they were the employer of first resort. where that is not possible anymore, then it becomes a trust issue. so legitimacy, to a great extent, in this day and age depends on whether the old leader, the new leader, the king, the deputy crown prince or whatever, actually is delivering, because technology has made it possible for people to know what people in other places have. and especially what you said about the younger generation, they are technologically adept. i have been talking about, this is been a peculiar 10 days, but basically in addition to the thing you think i'm talking
about, i just spent time with a group of former foreign ministers in silicon valley, talking about technology and governance. and what it has done in terms of providing people information as the weather they have a legitimate government. and it has disaggregated voices in a way that makes some of the organizational things you are talking about hard. some of you heard me say this, and i always admit that i stole this line, but the thing that is interesting is people are talking to their governments on 21st century technology. the government listens to them on 20th century technology, or hears them but may not be listening, actually. and provides 19th century responses. so that disconnect is what we're dealing with. it's very evident in egypt, and i think anyplace could be subject to this, despite the fact that the ones you chose our very specifically so.
legitimacy is what is the government supposed to be doing, whether it is a king or a dictator. mr. hadley: just one more, tammy, clearly, what is a government supposed to be doing and what is it delivering for the citizens? does encouraging states to move in those directions, in fact, is it complementary to or supplementary to other traditional forms of legitimacy, that for example the monarchical states are dependent on? or does it undermine those other sources of legitimacy? it seems you have to be able to answer those questions if you go to a monarch and say you need to move in the direction of legitimate, transparent, responsive government.
then you have some understanding that that they can be supplemental and doesn't undermine the traditional sources of legitimacy to which regime is dependent. tammy: there is an important switch i and language i would recommend to answer this question. it's not about what government owes its citizens. it's really about what citizens expect from their government. not what they need, but what they expect. that is part of what is changed and that's part of the impact of technology that madeleine was describing. one of our other cochairs put his finger on this in his paper, which is that part of what's
happened in the arab world and around the world among this younger generation is what he calls a participation revolution, that citizens, because of technology, and because this generation of arabs, more highly educated, healthier, more engaged than any generation before, and you must remember that parts of the region two or three generations ago didn't even have secondary schools. so the developmental leaks here are tremendous. and this rising generation has a different set of expectations. it's not just about making sure they have a job. they expect to be able to participate, to set their own path in life and not just have it directed for them by their monarch or their father or their uncle or anybody else. in essence, what they expect is
the thing that liberal societies are best structured to provide, which is the opportunity for every opportunity to find their own path to human flourishing. governments cannot get away with just offering enough jobs or enough health care or enough free education. check the box and they are legitimate. they have to meet that set of expectations. they have to give people opportunities to find for themselves a pathway. that means a have to be more open and responsive. to the point of congruence or tension, if you are a very traditional leader who believes that the only way you can help your society grow besides directing it from the top down, that's not the only form even for a monarch. the traditional pathway may be i am the source of social good, i
distribute them, but it can also be the source of opportunity. you can be the source of dynamism. that is an interesting mentality, but it is entirely possible. ms. albright: one other thing that has to be put in the mixture, and egypt is a perfect example, the way it stands is the freedom of this aggregated voices in tahrir square, the young people were all having an incredibly interesting time, having been gotten there by social media. and the older man who cannot get to his stall in the marketplace as i cannot stand this anymore, i need some order. so i think one could actually be persuaded that there was really a movement to have that happen, because people are fed up with the chaos. i think the hard part is how inclusivity and getting participation, whether people are tolerant enough to go through the chaos time until they get to the proper time.
mr. hadley: i want to go toamr, and then we will go to the audience. lawrence of arabia said i am a river to my people. you are saying a legitimacy based on satisfying what the people expect from their government and increasingly that includes participation in a role in fashioning their own future. i get that. i've spent three three-hour sessions in the last 14 months and i tried to make this
argument that this is a source of legitimacy. this is what he must do if over the long-term he's going to bring stability and prosperity. and i have not yet made the sale. what you hear is what you would expect, given the trauma that egypt has been through, i understand what you are saying, but you need to understand this is a difficult time, there is extremism at the door, and the middle east cannot stand a breakdown in order of a country of 90 million people. if you think refugee flows are bad now, you just wait until egypt breaks down. so what is the argument you make to one who sincerely believes, and which he is risking his life, how do you make the argument to him that actually this is where he's got to go, if he is going to bring long-term stability to his country? amr: this is basically the debate we are having in tunisia.
not just since 2011, but even earlier on. we do have enough cases to push forward very clearly, it cannot provide for long-term stability. before 2011, what happened after 2011 did not began in 2011. we had years of young people protesting and demanding that their voices should be heard, their concerns should be addressed. people took to the streets. these were not only young people.
i beg to differ. maybe in the beginning they were young people. but increasingly, people with grievances. which, we did a great job in the paper highlighting social, economic grievances. unemployment among young people, over 40%. young female citizens, over 45% and more. people taking to the streets to go to to rear square and elsewhere. provideer managed to long-term stability. yes, there are challenges. there are security challenges in the region that need to be accounted for. the question is how to get governments, and the only way to get them is to listen to society. we need an organization of citizens to listen how to do it
right. offer some solutions. not by imprisoning citizens and not providing enough social and economic solutions to improve living conditions. they live if governments live to their own constituents. they do exist. they will find solutions. state.re are more it is a creation of the 1950's or 1960's. way, there are leaps in
education and health care and elsewhere. it is the healthiest and most connected generation of young arabs we are looking at. but they no longer are addressing concerns. >> one last comment in them we will go to the audience. >> i think it is a false choice. i would think of the leader not only as a river for his people, but the people are a river. so, the challenge is whether you can create channels and mechanisms and pathways for people to have the influence they want to have over their own lives and their communities or
rather, left with no alternative, they will spill into the streets. and the failure of reforms in the time leading up to the uprising is what compels that mass mobilization. there is something that troubles me very much and which i think is quite destabilizing and dangerous. believes by putting a lid on it, he has lowered the boiling pot. that is what i think we have in egypt. we have no civil society channels. because the parliament and the party system are so tightly managed. we have no free speech channels. that is boiling very fast in a way that i think is far more dangerous than the situation in
egypt before the uprising. i love your phrase that the leader is not a river to his people. river.ple are the not a bad way to summarize. >> try it. madeline isit until with me. do we have microphones? right here in the front. fourth row. please identify yourself so we can get a lot of questions in, -- please notify yourself. so we can get a lot of answers and, if you will keep the keepions short, we will the answers short. >> short questions come along answers. relationsh is civil between turkey, egypt, and israel. i think, listening to you, it's fascinating how you are describing analytically the arab world, but a lot of what you're
cases onplies to other the periphery of the arab world or the core of the arab countries and turkey in particular, i argue it is going turned where it is turning into the making of .he mubarak machine -- regime civil society and places of expression and all that. there is a ping-pong regional order, imitating one another. , because weonder have the report on that, is there a center for middle east policies. is there periphery to the region , including turkey, including israel, of course, and the crackdown on society and israel as well? for who have to account is funding you internationally. a lot of what you have been
describing seems to me like a conversation everywhere in the region at large. if that is the part of framework you would encourage adopting? >> tammy, do you want to take that one? >> sure. yes, i would say politics is politics. while every region has its own history and culture, there are certain common features, right? and, yes, there are demonstration effects both positive and negative and in the paper i talk about models for governance in the middle east today, the fragile democratic experiment of tunisia, the effort at renewed , the brutal,ism savage order of isis, which is also a model competing in the
region today. embrace people going to in the midst of this turmoil? i do think it is having an thect on those in on periphery of the region, but i also think some of those dynamics -- for example the global push back against civil society and freedom did not start in the middle east. we see it in russia. we see it in india. >> we do indeed. >> congratulations to the task force and the working group for completing this. my government finds a lot to agree with in this report. and we think it addresses a key, key aspect. implementing it is going to be hard work because i do think worked inne who has the region until recently, a lot of people are afraid of challenging the order because
they are afraid of chaos. that is something that needs to be looked at. i would step back and i wonder report.ddress it in the are we doing enough as government to take an interest in the region, but not part of the region to stress human rights? for example, bringing out arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, these things that come way he before freedom of association. freedom of association is very important, but human rights and the rule of law is absolutely fundamental, and that is where we see such grave misbehavior and violations around the region . i believe we do, or at least we tried, but the problem, having tried it --
i will not say in which country -- we can't help you unless you do something about your laws and human rights. that was kind of mind your own business. but i do think we have to do that, even if it is not received by those it is argued who do not want to do it that it adds to the chaotic situation. the question is, and this has --e up over and over again our human rights a western concept or is it a global concept. i have argued it is global. decisionst to make about their own lives and they absence ofe arbitrariness. but it's not an easy message to deliver. and frankly, if it's not delivered alongside practical assistance, whether their security or aid programs, but it
does have to go together and if we do not do it, your country and ours, we are not fulfilling our responsibilities. but it's not happily received. >> if i can say one important point -- the countries making steps in the direction of what tammy has talked about? -- you arein the uae beginning to see it in saudi arabia. certainly tunisia. it is hard to do that and keep your society together in a benign security and regional environment. about the environment in the middle east today, and to say to the leader we need you to take a risk of reform moving this direction in a region -- this is a hard thing we are asking leaders, and we have to recognize it.
one of the things we say though, the attitude of the international community ought to be, if you are willing to make those hard decisions, we in the international community will support you financially, diplomatically. if you don't, we won't, not because we are being punitive, because in our judgment, it would be a bad investment. investment will be those states willing to make those steps on behalf of their they arecause we think most likely to result in prosperity and stability. recognize thee to difficulty of what we are asking and we have to be engaged and willing to step in and make the right decisions. yes, ma'am. >> hi. janet smith. i was a legislator for senator
leahy. have two dub -- i quick comments. one is an issue of trust. my observation, one of the issues to think about is trust among people themselves. they have the freedom to express to each other how they struggle with these issues. not just government people, but that he issue of trust. how are you providing the comfort level with the saudi's, jordanians, egyptians, able to talk to each other without fear. some of the most moving conversations start with the finding the political philosophy foundation within islam, within the region, within the culture that asks to questions. what are the values and islam that brings meaning to you.
conversation. and the second part, how do you want to see them expressed in society? culture grounded in the and, as you mentioned, things come from the bottom up, the cultural component and the religious component are obviously key to this, but those issues, i think, are a different .ake on the report >> thank you. reflection on that very, very thoughtful comment. trusttely, we talk about within communities, not just citizens and government. if you are thinking about a case like libya and syria where they have truly collapsed into civil war, you have to think about .hat
and there are things that can be done even now while conflicts are ongoing to build forums and platforms for dialogue, for conflict resolution. programs where communities came together around idp's didso that the not have to immediately justify themselves and the communities could feel comfortable with their return. i think there are examples we can build on. one half sentence on the previous point from our german colleague -- and i wanted to echo something my colleague, general john allen, has set a number of times. which is from his perspective, as someone who spent the last few years of his military and civilian career fighting terrorism -- if we external
actors who have invested so much in a military fight, if we do not also invest in the governance peace, we will essentially be playing whack him ole withhack-a-m extremists on a global scale. >> yes. other comments? other questions? h >>i. hi. -- >> iowa with a private firm that works in the middle east. is on social trust. i think you talked about it well, talking about the the middle east and the relationship a government has with its citizens and the expectations of citizen has with its government, that a citizen has with their government. one could argue that we are beginning, to some extent an erosion of social trust with
groups that may be feeling more withnalized or uncertain relationship to their government. i would just ask if you can comment on what can a citizen do rebuilding social trust and how would that be most effective? >> what it would take the early question? >> sure. countries which theessed the emergence and explosion of tribal conflict, multiethnic conflicts leaving to civil war are the countries -- there isorships a big difference in a place like tunisia and egypt and syria.
we had a partner establishing -- with an established civil society. we act as human rights defenders. syria, theya and dictatorships are these intermediary layers between the citizens and the state. dictators did not feel like they had the same, and to listen to radical militant ideology. there were no other channels. and that is why theories of what is happening in libya should not be happening elsewhere.
the key is to enable governments to take government seriously, to exist.society to why is it that morocco, for example -- it is a multiethnic society. we do have established civil society interactions with citizens. they see that they are listen to. at least it makes sense. at > >> other questions, comments? gentlemen way in the back and then we will take the two women here. >> hello. my question is for amr.
i really appreciate your comments on civil society and the need for civil society organizations to help those inside the region. as you know, especially in egypt, the government portrays us as a foreign conspiracy and will play up the hyper nationalism. how do you get around that problem, to have civil society in the united states or in europe helping those on the ground in egypt? -- thank you. amr: thank you. we do notly, jack, need to submit to the narrative. they should recognize the they have been
sustaining for a long time. -- notld push forward only reason the, but also citizens among different segments and groups and populations. there are cases -- tunisia, other countries as opposed to aypt -- once again, this is question of the narrative. what is it? security? is it democracy? is it enabling societies to exist, to try? to be addressed, to be responded to by and accountable government? running shy on time. i'm going to take the two i wanted over here and i will take
two from this side and we will go through those questions and we will try to answer those and then we will be out of time, i'm afraid. ann -- ma'am, you had one. the woman, two behind you. >> hi. i'm larissa. i'm a jordanian consultant. going back to the gentleman's comment with civil society, in the absence of the political will on the space is very limited. we can discuss options beyond for a governess assisting, but also perhaps governmental organizations. i will throw another group into the mix. inre have been case studies economic development.
thank you. -- two rowsose up up. >>hi. i'm a concerned citizen from texas. impossible, what is secretary albright was talking about, is it possible without dealing with the corruption. if you can not trust police are judges, how do you trust anyone? think that is why there is so much discontent. so, how to deal with that. >> yes, ma'am? right back there. >> hi. allison good, u.s. department of energy. you have done a good job addressing political governance issues, but it seems that there are bigger macro issues that
cannot be solved by countries alone. can the rest of the international community, how can they best bridge that gap to foster better governance? >> very good question. one more from this side? yes, sir. >> i'm elliott hurwitz. bank, intelligence person. i have not had time to read the report. on the periphery of the arab world, the only arab country i it iseen to is human, and particularly pertinent to u.s. policy. paneld like anyone on the
to comment. >> ok, we have corruption issues and yemen -- any takers? >> i think amr. >> good. let's do it quickly. >> i,inute answers. atamr: yes this is one of the key spaces which we still have available in countries where the public space has been done. how do we do this in a way that does not undermine the legitimacy. the question is how to do it away from government relations? it is more powerful if it is done with nongovernmental actors. again, how to justify, not from the minority perspective, but
how to get interested in what is happening in domestic countries. you need analysis. the analysis cannot be opposition. need editors to push it forward. spaces.one of the key >> sure. the headline out of the report -- sunshine is the best disinfectant. existsoadly, it typically because those in power are trying to grease the wheels of their own lives. toyou have to look at how fix the political dysfunctions that create incentives for corruption. rather than higher salaries or making sure there are
expectations from outside as well as inside and just to highlight for you, there is a sidebar in the report. it is a problem for every state, but there is a reason why arab states were and are in positions to deal with the effects. ms. albright: i'm not an expert on yemen. in many ways, it is a country that is the victim of all kinds of meddling. north and south human, they were not very excited about it with measure coming from the neighbors, and then the fact that it was on its way in terms of looking through some government work when it became the playground of a proxy war
between iran and saudi arabia. that is what is going on now. it is a victim in the country. that is the only way it can be described. like are powers that would good there. it is not big enough and it is absorbing a lot of the problems that cannot be dealt with somewhere else. >> i'm going to thank you, tammy, for a great paper. please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
district, a democrat who won that see. former governor, former attorney general, former state senator. are you the man in the room with the most political experience? >> i don't really know. there are a lot of people, and they all want to do what is right. what i think is important is we work together, we do not separate by republican, democrat, independent, but realize we are all americans. we have more to do than any other time in our country except maybe the civil war to come together and people are counting on us. >> is this kind of like the first day of school? very muchch though -- so. you're learning where your office might be, joined to find out who your staff might be. it's a very exciting time. everything is new. are you giving to your fellow freshman? what advice would you give?
>> just be true to yourself. if you speak from the heart, you don't have to worry about what you're saying. you will be fine. just be honest. >> your opponent ran on issues of reforming money in politics and campaign finance. is that an important issue for you? >> i think it's a very important issue. overturning citizens united is very important. dark corporate money in politics, we've got to get that out of here. we have to return the house of representatives to the people and make sure they are the ones representative, they are the ones we are fighting for and they understand. >> are you prepared to be one of 435 as opposed to being the boss in the state of florida? >> absolutely. i am an old ballplayer. i was a quarterback a little bit at wake forest. when you are governor or chief
executive, a can be lonely. this is a lot of fun. i'm really enjoying my new colleagues. >> congressman, thank you for your time. going with scott or you so far. as you get to know this new job. >> it is going very well. i have been quite impressed, it is going very well. >> of former navy seal in a district that has a big naval theence, tell us about second district. >> we have the largest naval facility in the world. we have eight major military installations, we have more veterans and military did any congressional district in the nation. it is an honor for me to be there. >> a district that has been impacted by sequestration. can you tell us about how that your district? >> it has been problems with maintenance schedules, training and it hurts our national security. the nation and the district as well. it has