tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN November 28, 2016 9:00pm-12:01am EST
we can't avoid giving them a sense of while president-elect is coming talking about burden sharing, it is especially complicated by what we see her gulf allies in the least doing -- in the middle east doing. in many cases, the u.s. has not been directly in the fight. they had acted in ways using u.s. equipment that the u.s. objected to. how does the u.s. maintain leverage in this relationship? do you want to maintain leverage? can you avoid having responsibility? , ifhe u.s. does act itself it doesn't act, it is tied to
decisions of others with which the u.s. buyout agree. we're going to have to find a way over the next five to 10 years to find out our new model of relationships is going to be. the old model, it seems to me, isn't going to work. is the new model yemen? is yemen a desirable new model? are we going to be up to maintain consensus with our allies? i think there are a whole series of questions about how we and our allies will try to come together to deal with a whole range of challenges and threats posed by the government of iran, which is going to make the issue of alliances in the middle east one that will get more complicated. kathleen: well, thank you to michael and andrew.
we represent a range of political viewpoints. i know that i'm sitting to the far left. i don't know if i represent the far left but i represent the left of center so i appreciate the effort to be inclusive on that. i was asked to speak specifically to the military aspect of alliances. many of the things i would talk about been touched on. i will try to hit a few points that either were overlooked or maybe require us to stop here and there. the first is just a history of the u.s. use of alliances and our military approach. it is probably self-evident that the u.s. had alliances at the center of its military strategies since at the minimum world war ii coming forward. we have never fought truly alone since that time. there is debate about whether that history is coming to a close. maybe that is the aberration and
the norm is something that looks more isolationist for the united states. we will see. i would simply point out that the challenges of the world are getting more complicated and interconnected, not less. there's no real way in a truly dystopian future to reverse that. i'm not arguing for a dystopian future, by the way. isolationism isn't able to manage the challenges we see -- nuclear proliferation, terrorism, cyberattacks -- to not wall off physically geographical locations and stop security threats we face. even if you thought we could , it is important to remember that much of our economy depends on u.s. companies and institutions being overseas. we can think of the u.s. as here and others as there, and it turns out a lot of u.s. citizens are there and u.s. companies are there.
it is complicated to look out for defense and security in an isolationist sense and think of international security in an international sense. it is an inevitable truth of that this administration coming in will learn, just like every other administration has learned, even if they don't enjoy it -- i point to andrew's mention of the president obama interview in "the atlantic." he does not enjoy being reminded routinely of the importance of these relationships, but it is a reality. how will that reality dawned upon the new administration? will it come with a low-pain threshold or high-pain threshold along the way? obviously, the first and most well-considered and thought through and the first to come to people's minds -- first and
last time in nato history, it was declared in mutual defense of the united states, and it was undertaken vis-a-vis action inside afghanistan, and that continues on. fightingok at alongside countries we are , talking about host nations as well. we think of the south koreans fighting in defense of south korea. should that contingency occur? we think of east european countries fighting alongside us. should that occur? in addition to the direct way in which we think about allies fighting next to us, we think about their role they play in terms of providing capacity
often, but not always talking about ground force capacity. there are specific capabilities where the u.s. has essentially hedged by virtue of having less investment. it has relied on allies who have stayed invested. one obvious example are the british, who have invested in minesweepers, where the u.s. has largely divested itself. there are cases where we need allies in particular kinds of possible scenarios because of the capabilities they bring. and quite obvious is the location aspect, the here and the there. if we want to be able to provide our course in an economical and efficient and effective point, we have to at times the close enough to the place we want to fight to make that possible. that means those bases in places where the united states maintains relationships, in order to be as effective as we can be in the execution of our common defense. the last thing i will point out
which gets underplayed is the intelligence aspect. many americans do not realize how dependent we are on intelligence provided by partners and allies. the u.s. really cannot, at least today, substitute for the huge, vast global network we are able to tap into, and pretty uniquely tap into, private among nations. there are also nontraditional fears. certainly intelligence, as i said, is one that crosses over. but things like governance capacity, the ability to help build out long-term institutional capacity and countries, places like jordan where we want to make sure there's security over the long-term, requires investment in not just military capability but institutions of government. local knowledge, culture,
language. thinking about the french and their role in north africa, where there is a unique advantage that the military ally can provide where the u.s. does not have the depth of experience and aptitude. areas where there is border crossing threads. this is self-evident, as i said, that the world as we look at it, from the proliferation security initiative of the bush administration on the high seas to the counter-isil efforts today, we need to have our allies look at things like nuclear proliferation, the flow of funds across borders, those sorts of security threats rely on alliances. and then finally, also probably understated today, but i know true for my co-panelists, is the view that every administration i know of has looked to allies as a source of legitimacy in the
international environment. that can change. we could have a united states that no longer cares about the rule of law. the fact of the matter is, historically, going forward, it is hard to imagine the united states will not have the rule of law at the center of its foreign policy and a national security interests as it has had for the 20th century. let me talk about adaptations to threats. obviously, we have a lot of work to do across particular relationships and formal alliances and less formal partnerships. it is a tending the garden approach where we have a constant effort, and the value is there to undertake them. i think that sometimes americans live up to our reputation for impatience. we tend to think of others as being slower than we are. i want to give you a couple
examples where we maybe are not so good but we tend to talk about others. first of all, the u.s. government approach the cyber security many people don't , see that as a wild success. we quickly moved to adopting cybersecurity as a part of article five. there is a lot of work to do to figure out how to implement that. there's just as much work to do on the u.s. side. another example might be the approach to the north korean nuclear challenge, or the u.s. along with the republic of korea and japan australia, and others have been grappling with the implications. let's look at the u.s. approach, where we are all behind the curve in terms of thinking through how to manage the u.s. approach to nuclear with korea -- to a nuclear north korea and moving beyond the more
comfortable planning parameters that made sense in the 20th century. and then as jon mentioned, we think about the missile challenge vis-a-vis iran, where the collective midsole protection-- missile where it requires the sharing of data. that is not there because there isn't this strong desire to share information that would enable collective defense. the u.s. does not like to share a lot of its missile data as well. these are small examples but you could probably think of many more where we should look inward as well as outward, because both are problems. but they are not uniquely problems of alliance structure, and our own decision-making can seem at least as sclerotic. the last thing that andrew asked me to talk a little bit about is the u.s. defense trajectory under the trump administration, which is a challenging topic.
the quick answer is i don't know. i do think there is the potential for a little bit of "back to the future" in terms of alliances, and as we had secretary rumsfeld, i was in the pentagon then, and his approach to the u.s. posture and allies is very much power projection approach. i think it is possible that you have the view that you can bring home assets. that will run smack into the reality of the budget approach. want to use that for us, you can park in nebraska and you're ok. if you need to projected into asia, eastern europe and , routinely do so, that is going to be a very costly approach. and more generally, i think the idea of how you grow the defense budget will be very important. i think many allies inside the
u.s. understand the connection between the health of the economy and defense. you don't want to have, if you will, so much investment in defense done in a way that threatens your economy that you actually drive down some of the value you have as an ally. how much of the u.s. deficit-spends will become very important. what, if anything, it ends up having to sacrifice in other investment areas. i do think -- really quickly, my analogy to rumsfeld has extreme limits in the sense that ct was not foremost in his mind, and i think that is the central challenge motivating the incoming trump administration, how long it will stay the court challenge they look at, particularly isis, versus a broadened array of challenges, will depend in part on how they
interpret the environment and how the environment encounters them in terms of actions. others might think russia, china, iran. i think there will be heavy scrutiny, as there is in many administrations, on combine activities and exercises, the extent to which they contribute to u.s. war fighting, how you want to quantify and link the value of what we in washington call building partnership capacity. i think those efforts will be scrutinized. yes, you have a relatively protectionist administration, we think, coming in. but as has been pointed out, military sales are important to the defense industry and the stocks are doing well with the trump president-elect. their ability to export effectively depends on the relationship coming back the
other way, in terms of the trade back and forth, etc. the last thing i would say is that as we open up the issue, if the next administration opens up this issue and sets up alliances and the terms of the deal we have gotten, there is a strong risk that others are already looking at how to make their end of the deal better. we should not assume that we would get the better end of the follow-on renegotiation on terms of various alliances. we should keep that in mind going forward and how that will affect the alliances and the sector more generally that currently exists for us. it is a big question. let me end by saying that thursday we have a global security forum and there is a panel that focuses on global
opinion and elite opinion and goes beyond alliances to just talk generally about foreign security policy and there is a more isolationist viewpoint all the way to the standard csis bullish alliance, folks like us here. hope you can join us online if not in person for that. thanks. andrew: thanks, kathleen, and all the panel for giving us terrific texture and adding expert complexity and really, i think, making the problem more real. i will open it up to the audience, but before i do, i want to come back to something that mike raised, that is this question of the west, and if it is not the west, i guess my question -- starting with mike, but more generally for the panel, if it is not the west, what is the organizing construct? is it possible to have an
organizing construct given the complexities jon talked about in the middle east? if you could wave your institutional magic wand and change an aspect of alliances and institutions, in a region or more broadly, what changes would you make? michael: well, the concept of the west is more complicated because if you look at distribution of economic power among democracies, early postwar period, you include korea, indonesia, india, and at the end of world war ii, australia and new zealand were the democracies on that side of the pacific. they, almost all the major powers, with one major exception, are democratic. not without flaws, but frankly,
who are we right now to insist on perfection? there has been declining american faith in our polls for several years now. you also have to embrace certain diversity. you don't want to define the global network of alliances, the core protectors of our way of life and values, so rigidly that you lose diversity. american foreign-policy has been a challenge for a long time. john foster dulles had a very rigid approach. john f. kennedy said no, we need to make the world safe not only against communism. we needed to make it safe for diversity. i think he was right on that one. we need to make it safe to develop norms and democracy but in a way that our number one priority is making sure that states are not coerced from outside. that is the first priority. we work on improving governments
and democracy. that, to me, suggests a greater core function for g7, but i think more likely, a core group of like-minded states that care about rules and norms, in a broad sense and then i think on some of the challenges we face with respect to hybrid warfare coercion, frankly, this is a discussion that japan and korea, nato, the gulf states, maybe should be having. although it is little green men russia and chips in the pacific, the questions we face are similar. kathleen and i have a piece on this in a couple months. the combination is not one-size-fits-all. heather: it is a great question -- what is our new organizing principle?
after 9/11, there was the global war on terror. that had very different manifestations. president obama said don't do stupid stuff, stay out of things rather than getting yourself involved in them, reaching out to adversaries and trying to bring them back into the tent. this is the question. what is the new organizing principle? for me, who is going to enforce all of these international laws we think are great and stabilizing and important? if you don't have an enforcement mechanism, if you don't have a military power with the military will to enforce or punish, whether it is sanctions or military, that is the conundrum. we can sit back and watch and say, boy, that is a terrible thing to happen but not in our interest, or we can wait until our national interests are
that, to me, is the overarching question that we really haven't had a lot of thinking about. we react to events but we don't put forward that vision. the truman doctrine was a vision about the world and how we use it. that is what we need and we need -- now from leadership perspective we are less able to articulate it. the west is not a geographic location. it is an idea, an ideal, and aspiration, what we have been imperfectly trying to work it. international law is great, but when it is broken, who is enforcing the rules? when no one is doing that we have a different organizing principle.
jon: very briefly, we don't have alliances in the middle east like we have in the pacific. we do it on behalf of our alliances in asia -- europe and asia. it has consequences for how our allies see us. i had an interesting discussion with scholars from china who are interested in what the future u.s. policy is in the middle east. one of the questions they ask is does this mean the u.s. wants china to play greater role in security in the middle east? i can't tell you what the trump administration's view on that is going to be but i can tell you it will be consequential, for the united states as well as the middle east. kathleen: i think that what i would say is that there is constants thematically, and they are the ability to deal with fluidity across multiple types of challenges, probably multiple regions, and that includes
fluidity across different alliance relationships. you already see a lot of that where we use the construct that is most useful to the most important players at the time whether it is nato or the u.s. japan alliance or bilateral or quadrilateral. i think that is good. it is good to have that fluidity and flexibility because the challenges we face will require it. i also think they require it because the bilateral construct, that cold war era construct, has broken down to the point where there can be partnerships of convenience on different issues at different times. that is not necessarily ideal for the u.s., but it is the reality. you can talk about it in terms of the loosening of the strictures on security that bind countries into one of 2 camps. that may be a temporary period
of time to be followed by a new arrangement, but i think we are in that fluid period, possibly waiting until a new set of arrangements caused by u.s. decision-making along with that of others or by longer-term demographic, technological, and other trends. andrew: thanks. i would like to open it up to the audience. back there. >> thank you. i am an advisor to aipac. you said there was no consultation in nato. if there were consultation today and you were there, what would you advise nato to do?
heather: thank you. [laughter] first and foremost, turkey should talk to its allies about what happened. particularly its operations in syria as well as iraq. this is a nato ally, now entered a very complex operation of which another nato member is also involved. the alliance has worked itself into a habit of not talking about what members are thinking and doing. it is easy to talk about a military operation perhaps in afghanistan to have an honest and candid reflection of what is going on inside our own country. first and foremost, it would just be an example of doing everything -- whether many members around the atlantic
table would agree with presentation offered, it is the government's formal position to also understand what the future is going to -- i'm a little concerned about the future of the general staff and the general officers, 200 of whom are in jail right now, and what that means for military leadership moving forward with in turkey. the changes that are undertaken right now within turkey require a very intense dialogue, military to military and also politically. i'm hopeful can achieve that. nato dances around the issues. i would like to focus on them square on deal with them forthrightly. it is important as well for other nato members particularly
as we are getting towards a very important election season within europe, the french elections, german elections, to make sure that members are fully aware of the implications and policy, european defense spending, nato operations, russian policy. it is equally important. nato should be focused internally as well as external threats. >> thank you. i am a u.s. citizen, member of the reagan foundation. i have a hypothetical question, and that is, now that new president is coming in, expecting asian countries to be more independent -- that is what
i hear -- my question is, what if japan and south korea go nuclear? should we support it, or would we -- hypothetical question. michael: i can only speak for myself when i say it is probably not in our interest for japan and korea to go nuclear. it is probably not in japan or korea's interests. several speakers have made the point that north korean nuclear capability will put pressure on our extended nuclear umbrella. it is one of the many areas where our alliance and dialogue has not kept up with the realities we face. i think if we have a serious dialogue with seoul and tokyo -- about how we maintain the
credibility of our extended umbrella. one problem we have had is that too many people in washington forget that extended deterrence is defined by deterred but also by people being protected. if our allies don't think it's credible, even if the reasons aren't good, we have to take that seriously. washington has been too dismissive of korean and japanese concerns. we should have dialogue and if we do, 90, 95% be asked will be the best we can take to reinforce confidence in deterrence. if japan or korea started moving in the direction of nuclear weapons, it would go through the interim staff, some kind of jointly control system, like we have had in the past with germany and britain, jointly combined. even that, i think, is a very remote possibility. if we are serious about dialogue with our allies, alliances are not telling people what to do. to make them work, you have to
listen. we find that allies are talking to each other about how to get more out of us. that is another dimension to this dynamic that people haven't really thought about. jon: the other aspect that it is important to note the connection between asia and the middle east, when president obama talked about how the syrian government's use of chemical weapons would be a red line in syria, and then decided not to go to war, it was noted quite closely in asia. here is a demonstration case of what violates the red line. if we look at what happens in north korea, everyone will say what does that mean about iran? everyone looks at iran to see how the u.s. will deal with north korea. there is a certain way which our allies look to other u.s. alliance relations to understand their own alliance relations
with the united states. there is a connection there they certainly see we don't. it is impossible to have a conversation -- michael: we do watch you. [laughter] andrew: up the back, please. >> united states of africa, task force. i'm 73 years old. i'm usually pretty sensitive by people talking about what was created after world war ii, american leadership in the world, international liberal order, international order. i always wondered, if you don't look like me, and people in the rest of the world don't look like you, do you get their authority, their consent? this project is an attempt to
continue european domination of the world, and we're not going to have it, you better stop the. ok? andrew: thank you for that view. time for one more question. >> thank you. reporter from voice of america. i have 2 related questions and i wonder if the panelists would like to comment on president-elect trump's peace through strength strategy, and also the rebalance to asia. thank you. andrew: could you repeat the second part of the question? >> yes, the pivot asia.
michael: so i can't resist the earlier question, which is a fair question. one of the strengths we have is that this system of rules and norms broadly is now embraced in my part of the world basically from the south asian continent to hawaii. that is billions of people. it is contested, it is debated. is there anti-americanism in places? definitely. do we make mistakes? definitely. i hear about it all the time. this may have been as the british and anglo-american and nato-centered, but it is a model that many parts of the world, certainly my part of the world, asia, people prefer, and we see that in opinion polls. it does reinforce the point that we need to reflect the diversity
of alliances and actors and players who have a stake in the system and listen to them. on peace through strength, great line -- reagan used it, eisenhower, probably john quincy adams -- look, the odds are very high that the defense budget supplemental will go up $50 billion dollars. one of my criticisms of the balance, the right strategy, is it wasn't resourced enough. i don't think the name "pivot" or "rebalance" will not get much play, but the impulse for it was not a purely democratic or obama administration impulse. it was during the bush years and years and the george herbert walker bush years and it reflects the fact that over half of americans say that issues the debt that asia is the most
important region to us, fastest, most growing region of the world. governors care, state legislators care, small and medium-sized enterprises care. this thing just has momentum. the question is, as heather said, how quickly will the new administration sort out the strategies and the framing? every administration since the cold war has declared its number one threat and priority and none of them have followed through on it. clinton mosley had to deal with geopolitics. bush was geopolitics, and we had to deal with 9/11. obama was climate change and they were confronted with geopolitics. one thing you can pretty safely bet is however it is framed in the campaign, the grand strategy that evolves six months or a year will be based around a different reality. asia, i'm quite confident, and i think our alliances will be part of that. but we have fundamental questions that merit addressing
but also how we make our alliances more effective. andrew: thanks, mike. that has really brought us full circle, and i thank everyone for coming today. if you will like to follow the project, you can do it on the website. i would like you to join me in thanking admiral roughead and the panel. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the holiday season kicked off on capitol hill today with the arrival of the capital crist. -- capitol christmas tree. it traveled from the payette national forest from idaho.
thanksgiving break tomorrow. hearhe morning, we will from kevin mccarthy on his party's legislative priorities for the lame-duck session. live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. sits down withns republican senator james lyford talk about the upcoming 115th congress and the child administration live at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. even also want to live on c-span.org and listen live on
the c-span radio at -- radio app. burks was among those who talked about the role of public finance in the global on a against hiv and aids panel hosted by the center for global development. from washington, this is about an hour and a half. >> welcome to the center for global development. event is of today's
challenges. we are getting closer to ending hiv-aids as a public health threat. the program has really been a bipartisan priority for the entire form. it has been that way since the start. the u.s. and its partners have been essential in the response, providing life-saving care and support to 17 million people, including 5 million orphans. we also have to recognize that our current approach of financing the fight against hiv-aids has not created clear support or incentive to reduce the fit -- to reduce the fiscal burden or two good partners to take on more responsibility and financing. first, fiscal sustainability.
only 56% of hiv-infected people in low-income treatment -- low-income countries are currently on treatment. we're going to have a growing number of hiv-infected people requiring treatment for the for seeable future. town -- has has calculated there will be a doubling of the hiv-infected population every 25 years. that is a must we get serious about prevention. the fiscal burden will continue to grow. fundersexternal currently shoulder an important share of the financing and our partner countries. we do not know the exact share given the lack of regular checking. some analysis suggests this is limited and inefficient. that means greater efficiency is essential.
also greater domestic funding should give priority. facing these challenges today, and this new partnership to inport finance ministries the efficiency of the health sector. -- have everyone's i/o's bios. google followed with the assistant secretary -- we will follow with the assistant secretary. the economicith counselor of the embassy of zambia. >> a lot of great people, so i will be quick. the first slide -- i flipped too
many times. what we are going to be talking about today is very much around accountability, transparency and impact. when we talk about the fiscal stage, it is that level of transparency and clarity about where those dollars are going. that is extraordinarily important. because it was getting more and more difficult to translate our data, we put all of our data online. agence sexes aggregated. sex areage and aggregated. any minister of finance can utilize to see where the program is and the impact it has. that is a partnership between the government and communities. modelt like we needed to what behaviors we thought all ministries should have in showing your work.
really around transparency, accountability, and impact. we will be announcing the three first impact survey that will be in the field this year. that is in zambia, zimbabwe, and malawi. we have known for a number of years we have had a tremendous impact on pediatric infections. pediatric new infections are down by 70% over the last decade. we also realize we didn't have the same impact on adult new infections. we have been exploring about what is that issue. when we are talking about the minister of finance about a year and a half ago, in their mind, what they believe the hiv epidemic was was their family members and employees dying. once people weren't dying anymore there was no real , visibility to the epidemic. we weren't really clear about
our numbers. in 2000, you had 80,000 new infections in kenya. the make up of those 80,000 new infections has dramatically shifted to be 90% adult. the programming you need to expand and invest on as well as sustaining the program becomes really critical. we also spent a lot of time working with governments to look where the resources were. there is this real issue between equal versus equity. we work really hard to create equity. equity means that those who are in need of services received the services. that is not the wall. -- not equal. the diseases are not equally represented. if you send them the same essential medicine, in some clinics those will stick. and other clinics you will not have enough.
you can see in kenya there is a geographic area that has an at -- has an expanding epidemic. thanks of the world bank, we have been looking at the demographics in sub-saharan africa. you can see just in the decades since the hiv epidemic started in 1990 there are exactly twice , as many 15 to 20-year-olds. that becomes a real issue when you have this data out of south africa. the number of infections in the young age range are particularly high. their data shows it is 24-year-old man and 17-year-old young girls. that dynamic has been ongoing for the last decade. when you start looking at these surveys, this is just a composite -- you can see in
their group they don't know their status. whereas we are reaching over 80% of the adult population knows their status. less than half under 25. you have three different epidemics going on. you have the pediatric epidemic, which we believe is under control and continues to be decreasing. you have the over 30 epidemic where you are approaching an immunity of vaccination. then you have the 15 through 24-year-olds, who have the huge demographic numbers and ongoing transmission. those are the kinds of discussions we need in the ministry of finance. it is the discussion of gender
equity. it is a discussion about tech training and job opportunities for 24-year-old. that is why we are excited about the program. i just conclude by saying we believe there is an amazing short-term opportunity with this new direction we have. when health people talk to the department of the treasury, we don't always get all the words correct. we bring in the heavy hitters who understand the words and understand how to make the business pay. these kinds of secondary investments in education will decrease hiv risks. they show the value for the money invested. and really have that dialogue about how you create a preventive health system. for 10 to 25-year-olds no matter , where you are in the world
they don't interact well with the health system. it has to be a different kind of interaction. these discussions are an exciting juncture to recognize the progress that has been made and hone in on the area. we are excited about the new partnership. [applause] good morning everyone. thankd especially like to the center for global development for hosting this forum on this very important topic, and also ambassador burke and all members of our panel for sharing their important insight. i would like to build on ambassador burke's opening remarks and provided an update on the u.s. treasury's partnership. remarks. this was a collaboration
launched in may of 2015. to improve the efficiency and effectiveness to fight hiv-aids. my remarks today will outline date,tivation, i work to and the path forward. first of all, let me address this issue of why this partnership. achieving an aids free 2030.tion by second, to strengthen the long-term sustainability. you are all aware of the needs for more resources. by some estimates current annual spread it will bid increase by almost 40% to $26 billion by 2020. donors and partner countries
alike must do their part to fund this effort. in an environment of plateauing donor resources, partner countries will be to take on an increased share and mobilize more resources. it is more important than ever to maximize every dollar. the treasury collaboration is motivated by the premise that finance ministries have a key role to play in achieving these outcomes. the finance ministry has generally been less involved. primarily because the majority of the financing from donors has been channeled through health ministries and other nongovernmental organizations. given their different expertise areas, finance ministries and health ministries often don't speak the same language or policy. that hinders effective collaboration. given the current financing environment and the key will the -- role the finance ministry is
playing, it is urgent that these institutions coordinate their that more closely with their counterpart. they can maximize value for money in the hiv-aids response. central to these efforts will be to overcome challenges around how public financial management systems ensure that hiv-aids resources are properly tracked and integrated into the regular institutional process. this requires strengthening the underlying public financial management resources themselves. with an eye toward the budget achievingn process, efficient and transparent allocation of resources, developing a robust execution system, strengthening human capacity and linking these systems for strategic programming and planning areas.
not only in anti-hiv-aids, but in the broader health factor, and indeed the broader governmental sector. governments are already taking steps in this area. in zambia, the finance ministry recently began an oversight group that will better coordinate and track resources between government and development partners. help address these challenges, the u.s. treasury --artment leisure is leverage is their deep institutional relationship and policy dialogue with finance, as experiencey years of to improve mobilization and public financial management. treasury seeks to support financial industries in our partner countries. we established three key pillars and a financial response to
hiv-aids. first, better management of health resources. second, improve coordination between health and finance. third, effective mobilization and domestic resources over time in close collaboration with donors. since the partnership's launch 18 months ago, u.s. treasury has advanced efforts by regularly incorporating policy dialogue. most recently at the imf world bank in october. in addition, the treasury has technical teams on fact-finding missions with several partner countries that assess and diagnose the challenges facing their hiv-aids effort. we have also held discussions with our country teams global , funds and other implementing partners to discuss how treasury contentment ongoing in country work.
as these discussions and assessment missions with our partners can in you, the partnership is entering its next and most exciting phase. it involves the formal establishment of technical assistance programs between the u.s. treasury and partner buildies to begin to foundations for a stable financial response. i'm happy to announce that earlier this month, uganda's ministry of finance and u.s. treasury five terms of partnership for the first assistant program. this technical assistance partnership has multiple it aims to bolster 'sanda costs -- ugandas hiv-aids and greater coordination and public financial management system. among the ministry of finance, and the countries control program.
by working group of dedicated business units monitors the resources, and optimized programming decisions and helped fill gaps in data availability, building a better understanding of on and off budget donor support, and addressing other gaps to prevent uganda from maximizing the impact. the treasury resident advisor will be working alongside uganda's ministry of finance. the sport work will establish a business unit to monitor the country's hiv-aids resources. the resident advisor will also help develop a methodology for oversight and review, recommend financial policies to ensure resources are allocated to high-impact activities, and analysis,e ministries and reverent ways in which to incorporate on and off budget resources into the government financial management.
taken together we hope this collaboration will support uganda's effort to make the most informed decisions possible about the allocation and use of the country's hiv-aids resource. ultimately, to save more lives. we look forward to collaborating with the finance ministry of uganda on this effort. and providing additional details on the upcoming panel. more broadly we hope this project in uganda is just the beginning of the treasury's collaboration. i would like to express my appreciation for the work you are all doing to achieve the goal of an aids free generation by 2030. as many of you know global health and hiv-aids are new frontiers to the u.s. treasury and we are committed to robust efforts that will reformer efforts, complement the work you do in saving lives. we look forward to continuing this partnership.
development. that is efficient and productive. the ministry of finance therefore issued economic the minister of finance recognizes that the quality of health services can critically impact the productivity of the human capital. the minister of finance realized the importance of investing in health and education from the economic development perspective. it is clear that domestic resources alone cannot combat h.i.v. aids, malaria and other
diseases and challenges to the health sector. further, the minister of finance is involved in the implementation of programs in hiv aids financing when the government unds are provided. t has not been acquainted with haring accountability that are oming into the sector. t used to get up to the levels f -- coming through the state.
there are no systems for use -- real-time data on a volution and funding. arising from the above, the minister of finance working the came up with , -- the group is working on improving data on resources, extending development on financing, and ocusing on points of overlaps. to support this and improve finance involvement, the government has a second system
to a resident advisor. this advisor will support the oversight with financing and financial analysis. the resident advisor will recommend financial policy, ensure our resources to high-impact activities. they also provide capacity development -- we also support -- we will develop and implement strategies at the four levels of government in a timely manner. we will improve financial esponse. we will recommend methodologies and incorporate the owner and budget resources. we provide advice and supporting development.
thank you. [applause] >> thank you minister. we have an invited guest from the ministry of finance who will join us on video. why don't we change out our panel while the hear from mark fletcher. are there any questions? maybe i can ask one question before you go. one is a lot of the measures you are thinking of taking with this partnership are really relevant for the hiv-aids response. is it the role of this treasury person to look beyond iv-aids?
could you say something about that? >> i think one philosophy that eeds to be embedded in the overall business of government and the financial management, if you look at the terms of reference that have been developed for uganda, basically embedded in a broader ook of financial management. the most sustainable intervention will be one that is tailored to assessing the effectiveness of employment in the hiv-aids area. ut also the sure the system is compatible with maximizing return on public health. i think these interventions will be tailored in greater detail. often those needs will be the broader context.
will be very relevant. >> when you think of one result ou want to see in the year and financial sustainability, what would you like to see? that we in civil society can look at this partnership and the outcome and impact and whether that investment, whether that's invest investment the health facility itself or in the laboratory symptoms that we invest in, has to be linked to outcome and and we can help generate that together, it will --
>> ok so much we'll look out. do you want to add any? >> i think the recipient should benefit the most from this plan as opposed to higher levels. the end user should benefit from his plant. >> that's a really excellent issue and it goes to the heart of the issue of efficiency. we don't no how we're spending necessarily every dollar, etc. so we'll look into that. thank you so much for our first panel. if we can get mark fletcher on screen and second panel come up.
you're not mic'd either. ok. we'll start with you, david. because you are mic'd. all right. ok. so why don't we start -- you're working at the world bank to hear about partnership. ave any thoughts, responses at the world bank? maybe, sorry, let's go to mark first. apologies -- ok. mark, can you hear me? >> yes. could you hear me? >> yes. perfect. so do you want to say a few words about this partnership between treasury and pepfar and how the government of south africa is thinking about these issues? >> thank you very much. ood morning.
the new partnership between the new treasury and pepfar, most of them have been engaged and in our experience at the domestic and funding sustainability is congressional to the financing response. and given that the -- the annual budget negotiation between the health and other sectors between these two ministries is critical n ensuring budget. [indiscernible] an increasing sustainability has increasingly lear that outside of the ontext of world domestic
financing for health care. so that a country that is only g.d.p. of to 15% of national revenue and building a taxation spending 6% of health care as many countries in africa are. and they've been working to support better domestic rioritization. while some countries like malawi are -- in the domestic resource to help and at special services and company has
"association"s on the overall of domestic health financing. i think i'll stop there for the moment. thank you. >> tell us a little bit about the partnership, what it seeks to accomplish, how it will work. >> first of all, i think we need to situate this into a wider effort. we really do have a comprehensive view about how we are going to achieve epidemic control and maintain it over time. this new treasury partnership we're excited about is really part of that wider effort. it is not that we never -- we didn't have contact with finance ministers before, it is just this is an opportunity for us to scrutinize that and give structure into that engagement
ith finance. we often hear in the development world you need to talk to the finance ministry about that. and this -- this new arrangement allows us to do that. i'm reminded of a conversation that i was part of very early on, with respect to ambassador burke's -- sometimes we don't talk the same language. we very quickly got to a commodity problem. the health side was talking about the finance ministry side was talking about the gas and the oil prices. and just to bring you those together is something that by artnering with -- we can use their unique relationship what they have and we can leverage the good will of their program to get us talking about the -- and we know from a long-term
sustainability standpoint, we eed finance. the transition have pointed to weaknesses in financial systems as is one of the reasons that it failed but we also need them for the short term as well -- indiscernible] that's what we look for. >> you want to comment a little bit on o.t.a.'s. what is it? what role are you playing? >> ok. it has been around for about 25 years. we are focused on working with countries that are interested in reforming their systems. what we do is we are invited by the countries to come rather than try and be demand driven
rather than supply driven. so when we're invited, we put together an assessment team and go out and assess the needs of the country and together with the country develop terms of reference that focuses on their needs and how we mutually agree address those needs. the programs that we put together, we try to be very practical, very targeted focus on the basics scat the voast it that they be sustainable. once we are done, the country can actually pick up the tools that we transferred to them. our advisors, we select them from skilled practitioners. we like to hire finance directors. budget director, people that have actually worked in these jobs, been responsible to their
executive leadership as well as be sfobble the legislative leadership and craft practical solutions with their ounterparts. once someone is identified, went -- you want to make sure that they're a good fit with the country. so we have handed a missions so both the advisor and the counterparts have a clear understanding of what's expected on both parts. within 60-90 days of arrival in the country, the general terms of the terms of reference are expanded into annual work plans where the counterpart can ask the advisor are mutually responsible for the work getting one. it is not the advisor's work program. it is the program to implement a reform in the country. and then the execution of the
project is the advisors sitting ide by side with their counterparts on a day-to-day basis working through the problems and transferring nowledge with hands-on working together, some formal training. but a lot of it is peer-to-peer mentoring that it's not separate from their work. they are incorporateing what we are trying to achieve within their work product. we realize it's sustainable reform isn't quick. it's what we expect in a year. often systematic reform is a three to four-year process and that's treasury's engagement. we are patient. so the counterparts that we have day-to-day jobs. and they may not be working in the most efficient manner, but for us to come in and impose changes to their activities takes them away from their work and we ultimately have to shift that work into more efficient
models. o treasury does have the patience to sustain these efforts. >> ok, nan da, you're involved with the sustainable finance initiative and even if we're very successful, the fiscal burden will increase on the most effective countries in the near term. you have any sense of -- tell us about sustainsable financing and what is the time frame for this? there is more resources required probably in the immediate future. external funding will be in an ideal world, the same, it won't increase. what's the outlook on this? what are we asking our partner countries to do? >> let's give you a couple -- so what we all know is -- and so what we -- what we observed was
that there is a parts of the economic transition taking place but over time what we have done is donor money has come in and crowded out spending on health which is a rational response from the ministry of finance. but as the countries evolve and grow, don heres pull back very quickly. -- donors pull back very quickly. and they differential is made out by out-of-pocket increases. it takes some time for public financing to make up this gap. and our sense was that in order to leverage the economic growth of countries, one had to have a strategic engagement that focused on four specific importance. one was mark and others have
said that really good data that can be used to go and have a dialogue with he ministry of finance and health. the second was improving financial management systems and planning period. the third was we can't ask for money without focusing on efficiency. and the fourth one was how can we leverage the private sector to play a more important role? and we did all these analysis and i had the pleasure of representing for ambassador burks all the modeling and all this stuff? i asked him if he could give us the opportunity and she looked at me and said that's fantastic. tell me what you can do in three years. [laughter] >> she is known for her patience. >> and really focus on looking t the -- [indiscernible]
the result that are sustainable over too long. vietnam comes to mind where what we found was that h.i.v. is highly insurable in the vam these context -- vietnam these context. nd the and it is going to lead to major efficiencys and the net value of over $200 -- now the link of the finance because eventually not what this economic cost of investing in h.i.v., it was what is the economic cost of not investing in h.i.v.? this is a very different
question to answer and we ran some models and we were able to demonstrate significant impact to g.d.p. growth rate, through labor markets and direct investments and this is the kind of information and data that ministries of finance like to see. so what we are observing is that this concept of shared responsibility is something that countries are in favor of, countries want to do, countries want to take on and what they want is more strategic and more focused assistance or support to help them. and this is where really getting the treasuries involvement is fantastic from a u.s.a. perspective. because the credibility that the treasury has and what the ministry of finance is something
that is important. and we worked closely with treasury on this and it's not about h.i.v. it's about improving systems as a whole and then talking about increased investments going to help but with a clear line of sight to h.i.v. >> great. that helps a lot. david, do you want to say something about the role of the world bank in all of this effort? >> sure. i think i would just say -- is my mic in? >> yes. > this is extremely timely and i think because the ultimately challenged if we can get a lot right and the first thing we need to stress is what an extraordinarily successful emergency response h.i.v. has been and how we can be proud of it but we do need to move from an emergency to a long-term developmental approach and i think that is going to be why this initiative is so important. to me, the single greatest challenge is if we compare the
share of international assistance for health in general with h.i.v. specifically. and in lower to middle income countries is about 20% including t.b. it can be as high as 90% for h.i.v. and ultimately, those figures need to converge and we need to help promote that convergence. i think the next important point to stress is one that's been touched on and that is how we can balance things across the international system base and if we can do that right, we can be prepared for some buffers and shocks. and the reality is that upper middle income countries needs to be progressing for paying nearly all of their responses and that's happening. lower middle income countries need to stiff change up, not 100%, but probably closer to 50% to 75% and within a relatively compressed time frame and there are a category of countries that
are poor for which we have no exit and we need to be frank about that. so what do we need get right? well first, economic growth is going to be important and there will be no surprise to people in the world that our economic growth forecast for africa are not as good as they were. the second storm has stormed. and the rest of the africa has downgraded to 4% which looks good until we consider population growth which is pproximately 4%. so, clearly, we need to focus on the growth that's not simply commodity driven. the second point we really need to do is focus on improved revenue efficiency and the opportunity we have in africa is kafka is a region collect less and spends more. so this is why the treasury
initiative can really help. but beyond that, we've also got to ensure that a greater share of resources are al call ited to ealth. and it might be rational the short term to pull out of health but it's very hard to reallocate an entire budget if international funding goes down. and i think to do that, advocacy has to change because our sense of the world bank is finance ministries are against single issue arguments. it's really hard to find a good argument for focusing on one disease or teaching algebra as opposed to trigonometry. it's not the question that ministry finance is going to but beyond that, our since that ministry finance tends to think of the social sectors. which include health education nd social welfare.
the efficiency argument becomes central. i will close by saying i think this initiative is a really important opportunity to move from an emergency to a long-term response and we can get this right but we can't afford a lot of mishaps. >> thank you, david. let's see. where are we? we have about half an hour. maybe i will go through one round with you and we'll bo the audience to prepare your questions. so, you know, given that we are at the cusp of a new administration and the ncertainties of that involved, i wonder if you could reflect on scenarios for pepfar going further what, you would hope the globe fund would be doing differently going forward as a result of any uncertainty that we have, any thoughts about that? maybe i'll start, mike, with you.
>> so i mean, i think from our standpoint, we're really in the midst of what david is talking about, this moving from that emergency to sustained response and i think that there's just broad agreement that these are the things that we should be doing. so the work that we're doing here with the treasury department is part of anybody's package of what we need to do to make that pivot. indeed, this is just part and parcel of a larger sustainability plan that we have. we talk about financial and programic sustainability for emphasis but they're part of the same thing that we're doing. we've created a sustainsable framework. we chart progress against that with our sustainability index and the dashboard that that's created. we've taken a further step to look at how we can take what's
now is really a plateaued international dollars of further. we're very much looking at efficiency of spending, going forward and hoping that ministry finances can be a good partner n that effort. the efficiency drive is really the key to making that going. and locating that within the context of the finance ministry s key. and that's just a pieces of t. getting us to look at the totality whether it's education or in the labor market, we have to pull all of those pieces ogether.
and working with the health ministry themself to show that they are a useful place to invest in over time. and so, again, this is much -- this is part of a much broader set of packages. the pepfar program even though we're h.i.v. specific, we understand that we need to get to for the long term sustainability and response. >> and, you know, here at the center for global development, we talk more about direct financial incentives for greater domestic co-financing. have you considered that? what's your role of the global fund in that effort? when we look at the composition of pepfar financing, you know, if we want to leverage a domestic spend on this or greater domestic spend, especially in those lower middle incomes that have some capacity, nots to finance everything but they do have some capacity, what
strategies would you see going forward? either from pepfar or from lobal fund or from others? anda, let's just brainstorm. >> the fact remains that donor financing is not going to be sufficient. to meet the needs of financing of health and h.i.v. and so that is no option but to work with countries on a shared responsibility agenda. and the bulk of the financing has to come from domestic resources. the other question is how do you make that happen? so it's what modality one uses has to be -- what we have to do is manage for results, and the results have to focus in two
areas. one is more money and better use of money and measurable impact of what the money invested rings. so i think what we would have to focus on going forward whether it's pepfar, global fund, u.s.g. or anyone ills on this three imensions. and having the data and the evidence really to demonstrate this increasingly. unless we can demonstrate the value proposition, arguing for more money by itself is not going to get us very far. and i agree that there are significant deficiency gains that can be achieved. and i'll give you one example inch kenya, you work with the finance ministry and they put in oney for the response. the first question they said was can you ensure that the money is roperly spent? then the -- it's to ensure that this money was properly spent
and the next year, they put $24 million. so if you can demonstrate success, you are going to see that finance ministry will get more responses. but it's going to be the countries that will have to put in 50%, 757% of the responses. >> mark, let me ask you, if you can still hear us, what us the size of the fiscal challenge that south africa is facing? and do the new reform strategies that you're thinking of deal with this adequately? what do you see is the outlook in south africa? >> well, they're facing quite a difficult period at the moment. we do have a very low growth cenario.
but i think we do have a strong sense of responsibility that this is our problem as a country and that we need to deal with his problem. i think we have a strong sense f ownership. i think it lays out sustainable parkway. i think pepfar did use the incentives. they were happy with the way that the partners are performing and thaw felt they want to support intervention for young women and young girls. o that was an incentive. but i think it does recognize other countries that are much poorer than ourselves, for example the g.d.p. of malawi compared to ourselves. it's clear that changes do need to happen over a lengthy time period. we are on a period of massive
expansion. we need expand from about about six million people on treatment. but we will do what we need to do. so i think we'll do our best in a difficult climate with the valued help of our partners. >> so doubling the number of people on air, maybe we're being too polite but this is an extraordinary fiscal ask from partner governments and so we'll look forward to following hat. it's a very major challenge to think about what has to be -- you'll have some growth in your health budget, maybe not and you'll have to real accumulate -- reallocate some other uses.
>> a combination of things. in the budget we had to raise $25 billion additional revenue. we have to make $25 billion of tax to achieve epriorization. a lot of that repriorization is in the higher education ector. we have a very active fees in outh africa at the moment. we want young people who want to be able to enter into tertiary education. so a combination of different strategies, but we need to try and get all of these to fit ogether. and i think we do have a fair amount of reassurance to our partners that they will transport us to the best extent they can. even if they are not able to, we'll continue to do what we think needs to be done. >> excellent. so laura, do you want to comment
a little bit about what you're seeing as you partner with ministries of finance and treasury and your partner countries? >> there's a lot of talk about efficiency but how does that manifest itself? there's talk about putting more resources to health and other areas. part of the problem is they can't execute the budgets they have. against the global fund recently in uganda, reported that uganda could only execute 46% of the available grant. so i think that that's underappreciated that the systems within these countries are very fragile and unable to cope with large flows of funds. so the basic underpinnings need to be supported.
and so one level of efficiency is the ability to execute their budgets, thus putting more rain showerses into the effort. -- resources into the effort. if budgets are more timely in their execution, inventories of rugs don't expire. they are actually processed through the system. f the vendors can start moving the money through, paying their vendors with an inappropriate -- vendors within an appropriate level of time, then they can get the competition. the vendors that want to participate go for a high premium on their cost.
with the under execution, you have high levels of idle funds in accounts. they are just sitting there because they can't get through the system. but, you know, those are some of the underlying issues that i don't think that is fully appreciated. and honestly, some of the risks are getting the right people that can take on the reforms and sustain them without a turnover of staff and also the adequacy of information management systems. there are lots of information management systems there. are huge information management demands and do they have the underpinning systems to generate he data? to analyze the data. so there's a lot going on that the term of efficiency kind of masks what the details are
eneath it. the basics -- get yeah, just get the basics right in terms of spending and executing budget, absolutely. so david, last question to you. what do you see as the world banks role in partnering with pepfar and treasury in this effort? >> i think this is obviously really closely related to everything the bank does, whether we're talking about trying to help the economy go better and be more efficient about revenue collection, spend that health share more isely. he overlaps are immense. i'll just touch on one dimension. i drew attention that a colleague of mine points out. and that is the game theory lens is pretty helpful to look at his. the u.s. is at a you can position of being responsible.
the other donors really have the early mover not to increase the involvement and to focus it on the scale and we're seeing it. they've not been able to match the extent that the u.s. has been put on. many recipient countries have a really clear interest in not paying more as long as it can be internationally financed. understanding this lens better is important in relation to your question, the one thing the bank does pretty well is often predictability to countries about their either lens, eligibility. and if we could communicate greater predictability about what countries need to do and over what period and if we can hold to it, we would be dover what we can achieve together. >> hallelujah. ok. let's go to the audience. please say who you are and then ask your question. we'll take three questions and then we'll come back.
o ahead. >> hello. i'm lauren -- indiscernible] i've got a few things to say. on looking at what -- how do you -- precisely at looking at how transition can be done moothly. we're starting with lower countries in latin america have lower incidents although sometimes the prevalence is quite high. and one of the things that we've zone is we've looked at the range of ways that the transition has been thought about. we're a little concerned about the idea that you can go to the ministries of finance and say we need a line item. and that doesn't go well in many countries. but i think what we have done is harness some of the things that mark was talking about and nanda was talking about financing in general, talking about delivery. and this question of efficiency keeps coming up as something we
need to do but it's a very difficult pieces of all of his. but i think that one of the things that we've seen in terms of maintaining h.i.v. is is integrating it into the chronic care management. and something like diabetes is fine for heading on to something that is very similar, which is h.i.v. treatment and following of the patients. that's not for the new patients obviously. that's one thing. the second thing, and this was mentioned by louise on the ministries of health ide. that i think is a really big issue. having worked at the world bank for many years, that is often the real sticking point. you can talk the ministries of finance. they understand but they can't talk to the ministry of health and it's about this issue of efficiency and not really speaking the same language or worrying about the same kinds of hings.
and that's something they hope can be added in. the world bag may be helpful in this. i think trying to bridge that gap, we had a seminar about 10 years ago for eight countries in frica. ministry of finance, ministry of health and education, oftentimes, they've never met. so this is an issue. finally, i just want to mention something that's ongoing which is the public expenditure in financial analysis initiative that the world bank is carrying out for many donors which is trying to look at some of the exact same things that louis talked about in terms of expenditure, how you deal with that and they've just started to do this for health. so this may be something that could be harnessed and used as part of efforts here because i think it's very complimentary.
it could save some time and may be able to bridge some gaps. thank you for the panel. >> great. thank you. here in the blue shirt. go ahead. sorry, i make you walk around a lot. >> thank you. and thank you to all the panelists. my name is joshua holmes. we're conducting an evaluation of the pepfar geographic pivot in uganda right now. there's been a lot of talk about three years, five years, long-term structural issues, but this is something that's already occurring and has been occurring for years in 2015, funding for h.i.v. decreased internationally. and my question is will there be a gap between the most optimistic case of domestic financing and the reality of pullback from donor countries and what will happen in that time frame? >> very good question. ok. next. and then i'll go to you. > thank you.
sophie from -- question everyone been asking is what could this mean that the trump-pence agenda, imagining probably not a reduction in the pepfar envelope but a realigning of what gets spent on. would be great to hear some thoughts on that. >> ok. so i thought -- >> me? >> well, let's take these three and then we will go to my colleague. so one question i want to pick out a couple of things that marie had said. one is line item or no line item and what does that mean for a rational health financing trategy. second, she mentioned the financial analyze. it is a standard use methodology that the world bank uses. is that something that would be used in the new initiative? our colleague from hopkins asks a very, very important
question. what happens if our optimistic assumptions about resource allocation don't come through in the context of flat aid. and then sophie, what next. maybe i'll answer that. i don't know. let's -- nanda, do you want to say something about line items? >> i'll take the second question. >> ok. >> as i mentioned that analysis showed that we looked at countries from 1995 through 2013. we look at countries that started low income, remained low income, that start as as low income and transitioned to low to middle income and it is really interesting. data is powerful. in 1995 there, are only three countries in south africa where donor spending on health exceeded government spending on health. by 2013, we had at least 11, if not 13 countries where donor
spending on health exceeded public spending on health. in 1995, donor spending constituted 13% of total health spending for these countries. in 2013, the constituted 39%. ok? now the other important data point is that when countries transition, donor spending on health accounted for only nine. when they transitioned to lower middle income, for those countries, they accounted for only 9.5% of total health pending. and the pullback was quite dramatic. so there was no glide past to transition. now you're rich. so what is very important and critical is to consistently map -- i think the point is very important is to able to understand whether there's a glide part or transition part. and be willing to make close corrections as we make
-- go along. it can't be one trajectory and that's where we go. so getting the data to make those connections is going to be extremely important. and we have history behind t. >> laura, maybe the question about pepfa? >> as far as the analysis, whenever we do an assessment, we o a lot of research because we weren't interested in weren't interested in reinventing the wheel. it's just part of the many tools that we use when we're trying to go into a country. on the issue of a line item, i think that the donor community could probably be a whole lot more efficient that they are. everyone comes up with their own categories where, you know, the
international system for class -- classifying functions of government and you can drill that down to sub functions and go into programs and sub programs. the line items for economic, the i.m.f. puts them out in the general financial statistics. every country is running their budgets according to those to international classifications. they have to. for i.m.f. and other reporting, they must do this. i think that this community should build off of that structure that's already in place. because again, the information management systems are primitive. the capacity of people is primitive. if they are constantly doing very specialized reporting for each donor, that's very inefficient and very labor ntensive and ministries of
finance have very few skilled employees. so i think there are some efficiencies among ourselves to be gained from some classification structures that already exist. >> the topic? >> not this one. >> the trump -- >> i can touch on the question. having worked quite a bit with pepfar in the culture war and the dispute about the relative -- with a might give us a little bit of confidence is the competition of h.i.v. funding has changed so much and the big item is a broad agreement that is something we need to agree o. that treatment really matters. and it is likely to be preserved so that just based on my own interactions over the last 15 years what is i would stress. >> makes sense. other thoughts from the
panel? mike? >> well, i just add about the on the treatment point and getting back to the sort of resource issue is that the realities are funding has been flat now for several years, five or six years. as to as the global fund. and we've managed every year to hit increasingly higher treatment targets every year. so we are by definition becoming more efficient and we believe that there's further to go within that, within that space. that only will take you so far and this is where we need to create that business case with the finance ministries. we need to talk about the different things. we need to start to make those shifts. so we can buy ourselves some time through efficiency, but this is why the importance of starting that dialogue off now and building it over time is so important. >> yeah. let's go to your question now, ead.
>> this has been a really interesting discussion. there are two -- there's an important word that often comes up in discussions between donors and ministries of finance which i haven't heard mentioned. and that's the word effort. the question is whether the poor countries in africa are exerting the tax effort that they should be and many countries, i'm wondering whether mark would want to weigh in on half of south africa. -- behalf of south africa. but many countries are judged by international experts to not be exerting about that effort and i'm going to use effort in the h.i.v. sense. i would argue that many countries in the world, partly because of the generous donor financing have not exerted the effort that they should on h.i.v. prevention.
and i think what i'd like to hear from the panel if you can offer some suggestions is what incentives are built into these new cooperative agreements that might enhance tax effort on one hand and h.i.v. prevention effort on the other? >> thanks. >> thanks, everyone for your comments. this is really helpful. we've talked a lot, i've heard a lot about results and if we're putting more money into this and that needs to be directly linked to results or impact. and i'm wondering to that end if there's what is that donor financing can incentivize domestic resource levels. we've touched on this a bit but i'm wondering if there are specific ways, results based schemes come to mind, token for c.g.d. cash and delivery. but would this work for health? has it been shown a big snuff scale or is it not feasible at this stage? are there steps to be taken by
donors in the next couple of years understanding that what laura said. there's a lot of donors can learn from. i would love to hear your thoughts on that. >> excellent. o ahead. >> hi. nna heard. so sort of in line with jenny's comments about results and i think debbie burks' comment about needing to see outcomes. there seems to be from the sense of the world a little bit of a hesitancy to spend a lot of money on impact evaluations on research to offensive what is working and what is not working. and if we don't know what's working, are we just throwing a lot of money at programs that we hope are having the effectiveness that we want them to have that may or may not be the most cost-effective interventions to achieve the
goals that we're trying to do? we spent a huge amount of money of this treatment as prevention, clinical trial with the result basically showing that people are not interested in starting he therapy earlier than they have been currently in the numbers that we really wanted them to take it up. and so due to a lot of different things like stigma. so the question is we addressing these ground level issues in a way that is going to allow more greater efficiency and how are e going to know whether we are being more efficient? >> well, that's a great suite of questions. maybe we'll start with you, david, and just go across the panel to respond. so what are we doing to ncentivize fiscal effort and -- ress attic effort for programic effort for
intervention if will we see more result based funding? and third, why so little impact evaluation seeing that we have a lot of sticky issues in this area? >> sure. i will be glad to know that i'm a big proponent of cash on delivery. i don't think that h.i.v. prevention is necessarily the best case to use. the bank has done a lot of work on performance based and result based financing. the conclusion suggests that we get a consistent and significant but ultimately incremental, not ransformative improvement. it isn't negligible but neither is it transformative. i clearly think we should be doing more on results based inancing in general. i like your point about the extent to which we should invest in different evaluations. and my own view is really clear. we don't have the tools we need to end h.i.v. we are going to need vaccine or a cure and that research should continue. n.i.h. has the world's largest funder. and maintaining that's going to be critical.
but i also like the nuance underlying your point is we need to do much more evaluation on service delivery models and implementation and efficiency and delivery, which we can do more quickly. we can do it more context and we can get some important answers. so as i think one of the lessons is maybe to do more speed-type delivery studies and i want to underscore that we need to buy a vaccine if we ever were to end h.i.v. thanks. >> excellent. nanda. >> i don't want to repeat what he said. and i completely agree with what he said and the need is to focus on effort in the absence of effort, that's why we use the word shared responsibility but shared responsibility has to
come with effort on both sides. i think and that point is extremely well taken. and more so probably in the h.i.v.aids than elsewhere. it is interesting to understand that what we might have gotten. questions i think we have it is segments of the willing tothat were -- as long as they get good quality care. publicprivate or the sector. i think going forward we also have the segmenting population.
at the start of it you cannot overestimate the funding. i think those countries that are persistently not responding to efforts to improve the overall sector have consequences. to mess things up in the negotiations. the countries that are persistently funding the -- i think there should be some consequences for the funding to be lifted. >> ok. laura and mike? laura: i think one thing is getting countries to budget more. because i've seen this in other programs. so i think that if you are going to have them, you know, make that an incentive, it can't just
be we want to see x percent in your budget. we want to see x percent executed out of your budget. but the other thing is this domestic resource mobilization, collecting more revenue, it is very difficult. most countries the large , taxpayers are the big industries and you're going to get about 80% of your revenue from those industries. you go down to middle size industries, let alone small vendors. the level of effort to get that last bit out of the system is very difficult. and i don't think that that's well appreciated and especially in these countries that you don't have systems where we're payroll withholding
from our income by our employers. so the next couple of levels down become harder and harder and harder through effort and greater staffing and to get that compliance. >> final word? >> final word. so i'll just sort of pick up on what laura said. i think that the evidence based on a lot of these innovative financing techniques and whatnot is quite thin. and i'm much more interested in -- i think it would be innovative if a country built its own health program, put it in the budget, fund it and execute it but that's really what is going to get a lot more bang for the buck, particularly over medium term. over the long term, you need to put time and effort into things that take out from the decision making process whether we're going to put an x amount into health or whatever that case may be and to be thinking more about health financing schemes that will take the bulk of what we have to do and then focus the rest on the
disease surveillance, the prevention efforts that really can't be part of an insurance regime. >> ok. and sophie, it's very hard to answer your question. obviously, we're waiting to know who will be appointed into the new administration at the department of state and elsewhere. and so -- but on the positive side, i think global health is likely to fare, hopefully, fairly well given the bipartisan interest in this area. what i've heard from the panel
is that this is what would need to happen no matter what barring an extreme scenario. with the focus on increased programic feasibility, a focus on prevention. there's some disagreement on how we should get that done. we all agree that it's inadequate. but how that will happen, there are lots of different options
on the table. you know, i think the other thing to look at is how the u.s. channels its money now through contractors and guaranties, how that money is spent. what share goes to service delivery and what share goes to incentives to invest in prevention and treatment. i think what's clear is that we have to show results no matter what on lives saved and reduction in h.i.v. incidents. and obviously, work always on the perspective of countries that are partnering with the u.s. government and other development partners. what could be reasonably be expected in a short amount of time. with that, i think all of our panelists. i especially want to think -- who has been instrumental in getting this all together. and thank you to our panelists and their bosses and thank you the audience. [applause] [indiscernible] >> coming up tuesday morning, subcommittee on health linking memory and budget member congressman jim mcdermott on the caree of the affordable
act under president-elect trump as well as his opinion on the trunk appointments so far. then, talk about president-elect trumps tax and proposals. he will also discuss fiscal policy in the upcoming gop-controlled congress. be sure to watch what you and journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. southern morning, the policy law center held a press conference urging president-elect donald trump to of hate.ncidents later, correspondent tom friedman on the global economy and trade. that is live at 10:10 a.m. eastern here on c-span.
>> former homeland security michael chertoff discussed terrorism preparedness in the u.s. with a panel of the council on foreign relations today. from washington, this is one hour. >> good evening and welcome to this evening's council on foreign relations meeting. the top against domestic security. brickley, i cannot imagine anything more relevant or pressing at this point. as a journalist i am happy to say this meeting is on the it,rd so you can use recorded, and i am sure we will all leap with much more wisdom than we arrived with. if you have a cell phone or other personal device, if you could not only muted but also
turn it off that would be fantastic. -- the format, i will guide the conversation for the first half hour or so then turn it over to audience questions for a half-hour. i read these meetings with stalinist efficiency. we will be out of here at 7:30 sharp. the council is brought together with a a distinguished group of experts today. to my right is michael chertoff, formerly secretary of the department of homeland security. to my far right, their full bios are in your information. i have learned a lot from the military who have to say that i have learned having problems about the world. i have learned a lot from the
military and generals in the audience. i have learned that if you're having problems understanding the world, divided into tactical, strategic all, and operations. i would like to begin with the most pressing tactical questions. the date is january 20 which limbs very soon. the inauguration, again in the time of isis. so director, i would be very interested. about the planning underway, what you see as some of the greatest risks and the what keeps you up at night questions between now and the inauguration. so it will be -- >> so it will be 51 days of no more sleep.
ans is going to be interesting one. we have seen some pretty large inauguration's in the last 10 years here. as well.will be large i'm expecting large crowds. we are planning on around 900,000 four crowds. we looked at the inauguration's for president obama ford 2009 and 2013. had aas before we even president elect. making sure we have the right things in place to handle that kind of crowd is one place. the other is that we have a lot of folks that want to express their personal rights. folks to dofor that. we are used to doing it here and we expect to have quite a bit of that happen.
this year and afterward as well. leading up to, during, and after. some of this crowd control measures can keep me up at night, making sure that we give everybody their opportunity to express their personal rights and keep it peaceful and keep those discussions and things that they want to get across in a peaceful manner for everybody to deal with. obviously, the 20th is the day we in a great a president and that is a very important thing for a democracy, for our nation. that peaceful transfer of power is what we are doing it for. making sure we have a peaceful transition of power. >> the physical security, any of us of lifter of witnessed. describe a little bit of the invisible that you are doing. invisible intelligence gathering, that kind of thing in the age of isis. >> here in the district of
columbia we work closely with local and federal and state that live here. the 51st state that will be the restrictive columbia. we have to share a very good relationship with our partners. sharing information. doing joint threat assessment. so, getting information from the fbi or from the dhs or from the military. we do not have that issue here. goodare a very to sharehip information. likewise, and social media is a huge aspect for us. knowing through social media and understanding the things that are going to happen or could happen. working with organizers of those plan, so have a better
we have executed that already. just last week on wednesday i sat down with a group and looking at all of those things, sharing that information, working with our partners from the national park service is and the fbi and secret service, all of the entities that are here that sort of protective our metropolitan area it is a good working relationship. >> i am curious. in hindsight, if you can look back at your years as secretary, correct me if i'm wrong but i recall there was one inauguration a specific threat from overseas that was quite worrisome. can you give us a little history lesson. we were coming up on the first inauguration that was going to occur where we would be changing administrations after september 11. we were acutely aware of the issues posed by terrorists
trying to take advantage of handguns. we also not after the election we're going to the first african-american president. --had actually inaugurated we had actually started to arrange protection early on. we knew it would excite a lot of crowds. we did not know if it would excite any bad he had a pure so we spent an enormous amount of time with the districts, with the surrounding counties at the federal and state and local level. working with all the elements that include issues like traffic management, how to know if there has to be an evacuation order is clear, how do you manage crowd control and flow and not have people become excited or aggravated or frustrated. all of that was part of the planning. in fact, i offered my exit --
successor, i said, i will stay so that atthe day 1:00 in the afternoon you don't have to suddenly get cap on the shoulder and told you are in the middle of event you better leave the reviewing stand and head over to the operations center. she and the incoming president agreed. there was as, reasonably credible and specific threat the cayman from overseas. we monitored it for a couple of days, checked a few things out, looked at a few people. happily, at about 1:00 in the afternoon i got the word that it was totally washed out. nothing are. nothing to worry about. but that is a kind of thing we have to be worried about. not only terrorism threats but dealing with large crowds of it emotionally camped up people. >> we were talking before about the credible challenge of the factor.icalized
you talked about the threat from overseas. 9/11. woman becoming self-radicalized without leaving any evidence or indication anywhere. how are we going to combat that? we are going to be more than just lucky. >> let me begin by saying i divide security after 9/11 into three periods. largely al qaeda, focused on large, complicated, high-profile plots to some degree. they vetted the people in the plots to make sure they were fully committed and reliable. there was a lot of global activity.
planning, communications, people. we configured our intelligence apparatus to patch those and by looking for the signatures that you get when you have a lot of movement from one country to another. it worked quite well. we have not had a successful large-scale terrorist attack since september 11. some of you know that in 2006 about 10 a plot to airliners coming from heathrow airport. bomb plot. liquid now you see 2.0 on a smaller scale. smaller group plot, they are planned but not as elaborate. they involve low-tech bombs and guns. we sign in mumbai in 2008 and we year. in paris last these are a signature or no-signature.
they are having some criminal or fire association but the focus is on the local community awareness. members of the community. the third group is 3.0 what some people call the loan wolf. wolf. lone the inspired or directed individual. they declare themselves on youtube. in the middle of carrying out an attack. many of these people are disturbed. it is a psychological issue. that's where family members and mental health officials are more likely to see something. you look at the orlando shooter, i gather his coworkers complained about him before he actually wind it up carrying out and attack. part of what we need to do is we need to tune ourselves not just into the big cia intelligence
community type of focus, but the community policing, local official community members, teachers and we need to construct a way for these people to raise their hand and over us when an intervention is needed. sometimes it needs to be something other than a criminal investigation. the hardest thing has got to be for parents whose child looks like the kid is getting crazy. it does happen. the underwear bomber father went and reported his son's radicalization to the state department. somehow that got lost. is there a way to do this for a responsible group to intervene before it is someone has to go to jail situation. maybe redirect a person who is heading down a dangerous path.
>> what are the tools that you would use to combat this problem right now? >> what the secretary is talking about is at the heart of it. we are looking at 15 years after 9/11 when we have learned quite a bit about how somebody gets radicalized. i push back on the terminology of lone wolf. it implies there is nothing we can do. it just happens. we remove ourselves from the process of what is happening. but what secretary chertoff said is correct. what happens in the community matters. it is not just in one city or one suburb. we need to be looking at domestic with all 50 states and going all in. we as a country need to prepare ourselves and even though the numbers are small of people who get radicalized in this way for
these kinds of terrorist groups compared to other threats we face, clearly the numbers are not the same but the impact is very different. and i think what we have to do is think about, are we executing an awareness on the ideological side that means every part of the community is applying itself in the best way they know how. have we given the schoolteachers information they need to understand what is happening in their classrooms, to understand these issues, to give counsel parentsded and to help when needed. have we provided the kind of infrastructure we need. an outlet for them to go to that is not 9-1-1. not the police immunity. i we understand what is happening with nonprofit organizations and community groups that actually really care about protecting young people and have really great ideas on
how to fortify and build resilience? have we given these nonprofits the kinds of things they need to be able to execute the way they need to? what we know 15 years after 9/11 is a government, as important as it is, cannot be that credible actor in the community to actually stop that 16-year-old boy or girl from moving down the pathway that moves them towards an isis-like organization. what do we do in between? i would argue that if we create a comprehensive approach, not just look at cities it could be problematic, but all 50 states. going in with the kind of money .e need to get it learning from the kinds of things with scene, whether it is .n paris or orlando what did not work? where are the black holes and how do we build them? gone about a domestic security plan that has all of those elements that
scale. there are one-offs everywhere but we've not been able because we have not had the money and we have not had the kind of leadership from both community and government to say, this is what we need and this is a threat we have to deal with. my view is that these solutions are available and they are affordable. >> but there is a dynamic tension that is always there. the money, the leadership. thehese communities, secretary of homeland security, they also the fbi or the police are monitoring them. taking away from that tension. i would love to your your thoughts on that. also the ethical region and terms of significance. drag so, there is one piece that has to be included in law enforcement and clearly that is needed. isis that iske preying upon muslim youth, let us remember there are only 6
million muslims in america and that number will double by 2030. these young kids that are growing up in an environment that moves them into an environment in the last few years. we have a responsibility as americans to help other american young people get protected from ideology that is coming from the outside and that is growing within. this isn't because we haven't paid attention to this. it is because we have not been able to -- everybody knows local communities can make a difference. i asked the question great, how are you helping muslims do that? you expect moms and dads who have jobs to come home at night and patrol what is going on? you expect community groups to do this to do the job we want them to do when there is no money for them to get paid? if we are really serious about protecting our communities we have to make the infrastructure so that the young people are protected.
>> in the national capital region what are you doing along these lines and what do you need? >> from a district perspective, having done this job for five years, this is a very big issue in the muslim community that we are talking about. when you look in our big cities across the nation right now, violence is growing so much and so fast. when we looked at the overarching issue, not just in terms of domestic preparedness, we look at it just not in the also how do we provide
the teams of different services and different agencies that will into communities when we feel there is an issue. maybe we feel there is an issue from the radicalization perspective but more along the lines is when violence happens, how do we engage that in communities for the cycle of the violence. there will be a shooting when victim willf the become radicalized to go and commit more violence. so here in the city, under our former chief of police and our current chief of police, we put a team together from all the familiesgo in with the on both sides. the perpetrator and the victim and work with them to stem the cycle of violence. so it does not continue. those kinds of targets i think are what we are looking at for the overarching issue.
when we talk about the money in cities there is not all that money for all the different services. we have to look at how do we take things that are working for one solution in broad and not just a little bit so it works for multiple solutions. we do the same thing within our muslim community, african community, and hispanic community here. you don't have to go back so far ms 13 days and we fight a lot to keep that from coming back here. it is looking at how do you provide those will-circle services in those agencies working as a team within those communities. you have the understanding this is the initiative. >> we are emerging from a very difficult election.
i am nonpartisan. you cannot separate from the rhetoric across the nation. building a wall, a muslim registry. what country are you from? the thread of sharia. threat of sharia. some have even said that islam is not a religion. how does this make your job more difficult and what should be done now to leave this country to a place where it is not so polarized? because i can just imagine how this is falling on the ears of 16-year-olds. >> i would say the ideology that theses is this idea that cumulative extremism's only make evempact if it changes the those of where relive. if a young american kid grows up and thinks of themselves as the other. religion, race, heritage,
whatever that other happens to be. the crisis ofo identity. what we know about these groups, we know that young muslims who have grown up in a post-9/11 world are undergoing a crisis of identity. they are trying to find out how to be more uber muslim, whatever that means. it makes a difference in my work in a big way that our country stands up for who we are, that we demonstrate that there is no us and them, that everybody has rights under all the things we know under our constitution.
that will add value to my ability and the work i do to stop young kids from being recruited. it tells us who we are as americans. another question is what can we all do? i will not be pollyanna to this crowd and say can't we all just be friends? i will say that we have to do that in our local communities. we have to reach out to the other. what is happening here at home impacts how we are perceived abroad. there is no distinction between the radicalization of the young kids, the ideology that is spread globally creates a conflict. if you are in a country that looks back and said you americans are not respectful of christianity or judaism or whatever somebody of a different race or creed, how that us and them narrative is alive and well and they will begin to move in a direction we don't want them to move into. because it just builds the movement that will make a difference to us here at home. -- ks in 12 >> do you want to answer that
question? >> i agree. basically, saying you are not welcome where you are. therefore you one to be in a different place with your own people. with muslims, we are seeing the rise of identity nationalism around the world now. theifically in europe and united states. in many cases you see the same argument. the argument is you have to can -- defend your kin against this enemy, whoever it is. it is pernicious. i agree that at the local level as you get to know people who are not -- studies show and personal experience shows that tends to create a sense, without being pollyanna yes
--pollyanish, i remember after 9/11, president bush said tuesday, we will bring the perpetrators to justice, and over the trade center remains, and go to a mosque is a we are not at war with islam. we are at war with a certain group and that is what we are going to focus on. i think that was important to hear from a leader to make that distinction. i think our leaders are really going to bring our country together and begin to reduce the conditions that promote violence. we need to start sending that message out. >> as someone with your fingertips on the national capital region you have seen the rhetoric of the campaign? is it changing your job and making it more difficult? >> absolutely. it's hard not to see that across the nation.
a lot of folks came off of this with questions of what now, with today? i think the president came out with a great speech. that said, you know, what comes up today is going to come up tomorrow. again, great rhetoric and a great speech to put out there. i will go back to my boss, my mayor, our slogan is "we are d.c." right? we are folks who share a common bond whenever there is a an emergency. when things happened last year, whenever wemunity have disasters, our thing is we are neighbors. now it is your time to go and check your neighbor. does he or she need help shoveling their walk, or do they have the things they need. that sense of coming together as
americans, it neighbors. helping those right next to us. that's really what we need to do is to say, we had an election but i am lucky enough to still have the secretary as a resident here in the district so i want to make sure we are still doing the right thing for him as a district no matter where he voted or what his political views were. it has created anxiety and the hope set folks can say this is my neighborhood and we will go on and the sun will come up tomorrow. we will go through this with a peaceful transition of power. i will express my views for or against or protest or whatever you want to call it. that is what makes this country great. at the end of the day we are all still americans. and we go home from that day, all of this. >> i will close this with the question on my mind recently. i remember speaking to then as
secretary of events rumsfeld. because rumsfeld said something does not automatically make it wrong. and this is something where he was incredibly insightful. i covered his confirmation hearing. that the remind people word "afghanistan" had not come up once in 2001. i would ask our three experts, what is the problem that is around the corner for this president which has not even -- uttered yet because we are not speaking around the corner? >> i think about the demographics, nearly a billion muslims are under the age of 30. i think about what happens after isis. we know what they stand for. there will be something after isis and it will be manifested in a way we cannot yet imagine. what i think about around the corner is what that thing is and are we prepared ideologically.
for the war we have yet to fight. >> is so, you have a great answer on that one. that is actually where my thoughts were on that. you know, with the size of the population of the muslims overall, we need to look at it as our as we need to community. what is around the corner with them, my hope is what is run the corners that we can actually take the lessons we've learned and not repeat the mistakes that we have made and be able to have the 3.0 as the secretary was talking about be much less of an issue here in this country or around the world then it has been. but i do think that the ability for the world to view crisis management needs to improve so that we can at least be better.
>> i was astonished. i was going to say demographics, too. i will add an additional twist to it. i think an area we have not thought about his latin america. the things that pop up. there has been an uptick in mass migration. it is really not all mexican. parts of central america which is almost ungoverned. you send back gangsters and they wind up not being properly controlled. and you have people fleeing that. plus, there's good news out of columombia. there's a peace agreement. brazil, though, is now reeling from corruption scandals. we are not clear what venezuela is going to do. if people are in fear for their lives, they're going to run. i don't care how big the wall is. you are going to go over that wall.
not only for weak states like africa and the middle east -- >> just a quick aside from the chair -- he did not create the word, but he popularized the ," which isvergence the coming together of all of these issues in latin america. and there was the foreign terrorist threat making common cause with the cartels. in this demographic. chertoff: well, we had a little bit of that with farc, when we issued the first indictment where they started out as a terrorist group and they started charging protection for drug dealers and ultimately started working with them. i think it many way, transnational groups are as much a threat to governments as terrorist groups. if you go to parts of mexico, you will see groups that literally control the government.
it is only a short distance away before a gangster says, i am not a gangster. i'm a political leader. and they come up with some a half-baked ideology for what they are doing. nonstate actors are increasingly able to leverage -- i think that is the next big security challenge. it addresses a different set of issues in addition to what we are dealing with when we are dealing with nationstate actors. although i might add with russia and china, we still have to deal with those issues, too. mr. schhanker: at this point, i would like to invite the audience. keep your question short. there are so many here. i do remind everybody, this is on the record. >> i am with the daily beast. so i am going to start with a
little bit of an obnoxious question. we've of heard some great ideas here tonight about sending teams into the communities after an incident, and outreach to communities to make them feel at least part of the fabric of the american culture. in eight years of the obama administration, what is the main obstacle from keeping this from happening? ms. pandith: is it all right to jump in? we are at the end of the obama administration, where there is a process. it is run out of dhs and that is where it should be run. you have an a report for secretary johnson that talks about how much money we need to have a domestic plan about fighting isis. that's 100 million dollars we're asking for in the next fiscal year. it took us some time to get to
this place where we are able to talk about the ideological side. the downside is it took three years for anyone to begin to talk about the ideological components. everybody started off thinking it's all about hard power. it's not about soft power. we have moved that direction. here is the final point. i think the biggest problem, it is going to be a huge one for the next president, is the soft power tools we have in our toolbox, the war of ideas that was part of 2006 national security of strategies that came out of the bush administration defined countering violent extremism as a war of ideas, the soft power peas, everything that is not connected. and somehow in this last eight years, everybody believes cve is everything from building a school to watching the weather to police force. we have mixed everything all up. so, in my view the weakness is how you get the actors who need to be able to do cve to do it in
the pure form as we began it and understood it to be done and get them to do what needs to be done with the money that i hope comes from congress to allow dhs to move it forward in the community engagement vision within dhs. mr. chertoff: the one thing i would add to that -- you always have to wait for the federal government, and you have to get each community, state, locality has to have its own plan about how it will deal with this. far too often there is justifiable criticism, you are waiting for the president and congress to act. you do not have to wait. this is not an area where you are invading the prerogative of the federal government. and frankly, i think, using the states as a laboratory for what works can create a model for the other states can then adopt. >> there has to be follow-up and
stability of this. there is one of obama's finest pieces of rhetoric, a use that as capital r rhetoric. when you look at specific promises that were made and whites the civic deliverables there were, i think you have to give them a very very poor rating. chertoff: having rented apartment which was all about implementation, speeches are great but that is not the end of the story. that is the beginning. mr. geldart: we did it at the local level because we wanted to keep our crime rate down, right? so we put something in place that was expensive for the city and we looked at that and we said, you know what? we can expand on this and we can take it into other areas. you go right across the border to montgomery county, they are doing something a little bit different. exchanging those ideas and saying this is kind of working there and this is kind of
working here, that think tank of how you share ideas but up to the policy level to say, ok, here is a set of tools that can be used across the nation. so like areas like the district of columbia, other cities, l.a., other cities like that, can look at that and say, ok, how do i take what they did and adapt it? it's not going to work the same way. ms. pandith: i would add just one more thing. i think there has not been a vision to understand all of the elements of going all in. we have been looking at the threat from the lens -- and we are talking domestic now -- of dhs, which is an important lens, but there are other departments and agencies in our government that have a role to play. hhs, department of education, i could list others. it took a long time for us to get to a place where we could talk about integration. and that has been a failure in my view.
in addition, there is this idea about what is possible. we are the most innovative nation in the world and we have not applied ourselves to this issue with the kind of resilience and innovation we can. why aren't we scaling up what we already know? we know what needs to be done. so, one of the failures, i think, has been, in my view, the division and secondly, the professionalization. ok? the kinds of actors in our government, most of whom are wonderful former colleagues. their heart is in this. they need to do this. but not all of them have the skills that to do the things that need to be done on and off-line. when i think about what we need to do to build the kind of plan domestically to stop the vast majority of young muslims from finding this ideology appealing, we are not even beginning to build that plan out. the way we really should. mr. chertoff: we are great at
spending time in venting things like pokemon go and we have all of the social media that can micro target ads. why can't the people who are doing the start to think about, how do we, when certain kinds of behaviors are occurring online, why can't we put in ads or connect things that broadened their apertures. one of the complaints now as you are living in your own world where you only deal with the like-minded. what if the ads, instead of just selling new stuff, try to give you connections with perspectives that were a little broader? >> question on the side of the room? anybody? please. >> i'm greg from the national intelligence also. i get paid to be a contrarian so let me ask a contrarian question. you look at i sold
domestically and numbers, it is trivial. but people are scared. if you look at the polls, people are scared well beyond what i think most of us would say is reasonable. let's suggest we have over time, taking the threat, our leaders are not doing a good enough job of putting this thread in broader perspective? mr. chertoff: i would adhere to that. you have to balance technology with threat and not overreact. that there has been over reaction on the part of the transition but i think there has been may be a lack of acknowledgment. a little bit of a tendency to say game over, nothing more to see here. i think when people hear that from the government and then they see things in the news that -- even if it is relatively small -- that suggest there is still a threat. they begin to doubt the government.
i think the challenge here is you have to knowledge there is a threat. you have to put it into perspective but you cannot minimize it or say it is over. balance. tough but i do think that the worst thing that can happen is losing credibility. a little bit equivalent of what president bush got criticized for what that an hour "mission accomplished." if you say there is no problem anymore and then a problem arises -- geldart: al qaeda only became an existential threat when they did something that violated our fundamental principles. mr. chertoff: i think what he meant at the time, when we went into afghanistan, you know we found labs.
these guys were trying to come up with chemical and biological weapons, and had they done so, there were potential issues out there that would have been escalated. and you remember the anthrax attacks which did not come from al qaeda, but was a pretty clear reminder of what was capable of there. i do think we dialed back that eight, bit in the last 12, 13 in years. a credit to both administrations working together. you could argue maybe it was a slightly -- but i will try you the interesting thing is is. i think if you slightly overreact, it is actually helpful. you don't have to go to wait too far. i think if you are under react, it is actually harmful. >> i am itsy with the naval postgraduate school. i am betsy with the naval
postgraduate school. chris, i want to thank you for knowing you're going to take care of these kids coming in on the 21st. my family is coming in from berkeley and all of their friends are flying in. i want to make sure they will be well protected. >> [indiscernible] [laughter] >> i have a sense, and my assumption is it is diminishing because the attendance and churches is dropping. i know myself, there are so many demands on our time. i don't know the people that live on our block. it embarrasses me. but i know it would take time to do it. it seems to me that if we had leadership from the top talking about the importance of community, that it is something we all need to getting gauged in , it would be a really useful thing to do. and for you, mr. secretary, how would you reorganize your department if you were the new secretary today? all, irtoff: first of
think reorganizations are always painful and costly and i probably would not. i would say what i would do, and i think secretary johnson is doing this, is build more of a sense of joint notes. think is the department [indiscernible] -- that is really where i would focus my time. geldart: i will take the community one on for a second and say i agree with you. there's all of these groups that i grew up with that nowadays when you talk to folks, the memberships and people being engaged and involved, the numbers do come down. i think really for us here, and this is what we try to do here in d.c., in the city to cause there's a lot of people who come and go, we are a community.
and the mayor can get up there engaged we have this community, i go to probably three community meetings a week to be engaged. some of those are in my own community that i go to is a resident. but really, that impetus is on us. it is on everybody's sitting in this room. you go back to president ] -- dy, [indiscernible i take that seriously. my wife and i, before i came talked toent and neighbors on our street. we went and helped them out. we help them. that is what it takes.
individual engaging with their community. residentt wait for the or somebody. i want to do it just on my block. >> yes? >> kevin. i would like to take the analysis of some of the worst cases of domestic terrorism like the atlanta bomber. we had a troubled young person and they were not in the criminal justice is in, there is no basis for enhanced surveillance -- how might government organized groups, community, religious groups. i get the best term is in intervention of some kind at the point that it might be meaningful.
>> the first part obviously is education and understanding how someone gets radicalized. we have so little information in the public domain that people are observing. we need to make it user friendly. to understand radicalized. what is happening in the human mind. the human mind does not cap mature until the age of 24. there is a lot that goes on between the age of 0-24 that we have to understand across the board. it acceptable to talk about. and it to get there means we have to normalize the conversation into that is what i meant by making the tools available for parents or for teachers to understand and to broaden this out and to bring the experts in. the second piece of it is what do you do then? you see a young person who might be moving in that election that needs the kind of help that we
might need. i go back to what i said about putting it together for secretary johnson. we would like to see americans in anvolved in this issue way that maximizes our research and our understanding of adolescent child mind behavior and integrate it with the community so there are places within the communities that we have the expertise alongside a safe space in which a child can go. my final point, there is nowhere in the world that is the center for extremism vis-a-vis the human mind. there are places that, god forbid, if your child has a question or bulimia or name another illness it might be out there that you know, the leading place in the world to go get help us with someone or houston or wherever it happens to be. leading medical center in the world for a young child that against you find a
place like isis? it does not exist. it needs to exist. >> thank you. i have with human rights first. all three of you agreed that the kind of rhetoric that we heard during the campaign, the exclusionary kind of rhetoric, us versus them, the muslim registry, was making our jobs more difficult and increases the attractiveness of groups like young people. in jet, we know this administration coming into office and we've seen already some of the people who are being safe for secretary of homeland security have very specific plans to kind of operationalize some of that rhetoric. what can we do as we kind of watch this unfold? to counter that.
to counter message that in a way oft can deprive our enemies advantages they might gain from that kind of rhetoric? sayist of all, i would there are a range of things said about various issues, wars and registries, which depending on the day of the week is very different. but honestly, the system, with all the complaints about the system, how slow it is, the framers in their genius designed it that way. it does limit your ability to really say extreme things. speaking of the wall, we have built about a 600 mile fence. it took a long time to do, and we didin