Different and new. I think it is useful but not absolutely essential to the overall relationship. Just getting the Team Together on the american side, which hampered its first few months, but i would not myself think that this was critical to the issue of inking forward. I think that has to be done to some degree by the Prime Minister and the president. They have little time together, so it is very much something that needs to be included in the regular meetings at the foreign secretary level and then at the theor official level, like political director and others in the foreign office. You have this overview of the overall relationship. Well, that takes me rather neatly onto my next point, which is that sometimes we make a mistake in this country in seeing american foreignpolicy as being monolithic, because you have a number of sources. You have got the white house, that you mentioned. You have got the state department. You have got the senate, the Foreign Relations committee. C, and youot the ns have got the pentagon. Do you think that we have difficulty here in formulating policy when there are so many sources of policy on the other side of the atlantic . I think it is something we have to bear in mind the whole time. Because it is big and cumbersome, it takes a long time to get itself in a position where it can say to the congress or to the allies or to anyone else, this is where we are, so we have to bear that in mind, but i think it is absolutely right that whether it is london or washington, you have to cover all of those bases. You could add a think tank. You could add the media, which are all part of this battle policymaking. The more closed environment can in which they operate, i think there are some straight in the american system, but it is different from ours. Decade, thethe president finally came to a view that there might be some opposition on the congress. When you were ambassador in washington, what about the fact that you were expected to cover this . How was it possible to do that . The embassies have to be equipped to do that, particularly with the central relationships, with the state department, the pentagon, the nsc. There is a lot of contact with london, and that is one of the peculiar features, one of the exceptional features of the u. K. U. S. Relationship. You have got to be staffed to cover that waterfront in and a desk officer, to take an example, needs to be just as effective on the hill sc as with the contacts daily. The 1980s, that was the position, as well. That is the way the american system operates in this area, and sometimes, taking an example of the iran sanctions, which is an important one today, a couple of years ago, there was another round of sanctions being debated in the u. S. Congress, one element of which touched on the interests of bp because their operation might have been effected. We had to lobby hard. That was an operation conducted with the agreement of the administration, the tacit agreement of the administration, but we had to do it pretty much ourselves with our European Partners on the hill, so you have to have a congressional operation as well as one that focuses on the administration. Thank you. It does sometimes look from the outside that sometimes it gets behind the curve, that we are a little slow to detect a shift in u. S. Policy towards the afghanistan surge. We were a bit slow to determine the change with iran. Also with the sensitivities in libya. Develop this in washington, increase staff in washington, change the activities of the staff so we do not get put out. I do not know that your examples are right, but lets proceed on that basis. I think the key point is to ensure that you have got reasonable that goes without saying. But if you do, then to make sure that people in the embassy and indeed the people in london are as open as they can be to a very wide range of people. Mr. Stewart, you were one of those who had a very good occasional look at american afghanistan as it was evolving in 2009. Remember talking to you personally, but i hope that others in the embassy kept in close touch with you. If you were not at that stage part of the system but had a take on the way american policy is developed, it ought to be important to the embassy, as well. I hope they are. That is more needs to be done, then that is something to think about. It comes back to the idea that part of that is a debate about resources. Earlier, the change in ofminology with the effort asia, rebalancing towards asia, you mentioned also the way in which you felt that the u. K. U. S. Strategic partnership was important. Nonetheless, you get the impression that given the fact that we are looking at the u. S. , the communist countries are gone, the 28 this is really becauseattention away of the macroeconomic and geopolitical developments that with china ande Everything Else that is and theg at the moment, u. K. Is far less important to the u. S. Than it has been in the past. , andactually do not think this may be the minority view, i do not think it has very much to do with europe when it was conceived. I think it was conceived thategically as a signal the United States was going to get out of two very difficult wars, a preoccupation with military intervention in and instan and in iraq, the next decade, they wanted it to be about launching a new type of partnership with a range of emerging countries around the world, but particularly those in whichiapacific region, is an area of obvious economic growing in may be complexity. I think that is what it is about. Now, the fact is that a number of europeans, not the u. K. , but a number of europeans who felt they were slighted by the pivot i think be a ministration realized they had not said enough about where europe fit into in this worldview, and that came through in a number of subsequent statements by the administration. Think certainly time the 1990s, the last that the United States was really focused on europe, a geopolitical object in its own but the key thing for americans as they look to europe is whether we are participating with them in World Affairs and whether the europeans are doing enough as a whole to support the Nato Alliance in afghanistan, europe, not large, the u. K. , but europe came up short, whether we work active and responsible partners on issues like iran. I think the answer is, yes, we have been so, increasingly so, given the impact of the european sanctions. What they ares looking at, whether europe is an effective Global Partner for america, and there are some good stories to tell and some less effective examples of that cooperation. I do not think it is particularly about europe. Any possible impact with the relationship, and that the u. K. Should have taken part , whether thection u. K. Goes along with america or some other factor involved . I do not think it was the i am not sure there was a completely single model. I think in both the case of libya and serious, the truth was that the british Prime Minister and the french government, and maybe a few others around europe, were actually more in favor of action and a military element than the United States was. I do not think we would have had the nato action without the president there, and our Prime Minister consistently argued for a more active western european and transatlantic posture, so i do not think it was that. Of the use ofmple chemical weapons in syria, and it was the american president turning around and trying to persuade Prime Minister cameron. I think David Cameron already saw the need for action. I think the reality is that in both countries, Public Opinion was extremely cautious, and the majority was opposed to any form of direct military action, which is what came through, but the reason it was why american policy evolved as it did. I felt at the time that our own americanefore the position and the president s position evolved, my Immediate Reaction to the vote here was that it could not change, could not erase the type of cool water buton relationship we have, i felt that particularly watching american reaction in the days ahead, where the president felt it necessary congress, consult and, of course, had there be a congressional vote, and in the end, there was not one, i think it would have been touch and go. The numbers particularly in the house of representatives looked to be negative for the president , so i think about having the u. K. And u. S. At the popular level, the level where people with an interest in Foreign Policy, i think there is quite a shared set of views about the world we are in after afghanistan. I think Public Opinion is the same way, in the same direction, so i do not see the house of commons vote as having a negative impact on u. K. U. S. Relations, and that accounted for the president says the tatian and uncertainty in the policy. The long term would not be affected. You do not think it was just being polite . Think so. O not i think actually for both countries, there is a longterm issue about taking action in the world and whether we are going to remain actively involved in World Affairs. I do not mean from that amazed apple boots on the ground answer to the worlds problems, but are we going to be actively involved, and that often involves the security and the political element as well as the traditional economic ties in World Affairs, and i think there is a question about that in britain, whether our Political Leadership in this house and also in government has the stomach for the sorts of decisions and issues for the future, and this is going to come through, as i said, with a defense of a decision that we will talk about in the next parliament. I think america is going through much the same debate, and they are uncertain about the world they are in and feel they are in a transition with the shape of a water isnd world war clearly breaking down, but we cannot see what is going to follow us. The uncertainty is the same in both countries. Handled, itt was obviously came as a surprise to. He u. S. Did that influence their decisions about what they would do . What was their attitude . I think there was surprise. If i may say so, i think there was a surprise in london also. Inhink there was surprise washington, certainly, and i think the fact that the president had had a vote was one of the factors which influenced so i think we ought to be a little bit less defensive than we can be sometimes on this. The fact is that british policy on syria and the decision of the British Parliament are consequential matters for the United States. Be a shock war for us. That is the way it is. It is a good thing. Is aows our relationship two way one and that we can have some impact. Schmidt has said that the special relationship, that there is not much to do about it. Feel weextent do you should be concerned about it, that we perhaps enable the u. S. To win the u. K. Goodwill too cheaply as a result . I do not want to make too simplistic a distinction between the people who practice the relationship and the way that our media describe it, but as i said before, i think the a tendency to portray the relationship too much in personal terms, number one, and number to, to be so touchy about it and very sensitive to each raising an eyebrow or a slight gesture one way or another, that you can get the strategic impact that can be lost, so i certainly come across towe the americans, not the least the way the media presents it, overly defensive and sensitive about maybe some of the superficial aspects of the relationship, and i think we need to be more confident about it. About the small things which can sometimes be bigger issues but actually are not that important in the long run. And if you look around the has supplanted the u. K. As the United States most significant ally, are jiggly in the areas that we are talking about today, political, security, defense, Foreign Policy area. I think any economic area, you could argue about germany as a partner of the United States. That is very, very important, indeed. I dont think that we have ourally opposition short. Of examples of where we have advocated a policy to the United States and come through in the end, sometimes not instantly, but sometimes they have come round to our point of view after further so inal deliberations, agree with the trend of your question, which is that we are probably so hung up about the superficial aspects in the relationship that we avoid concentrating on the content, and content is everything, and the relationship has to be in the service of our National Interests in the issues we are talking about, whether it is nuclear or irma or the middle east. Like to come back to just very briefly the end about this business about the success we have had. More confident, perhaps, and that means sometimes disagreeing with the americans when we have to, but can i just get to the ouril about the role military capability plays in the and therelationship, special relationship is based on a variety of factors, including ability, etc. , etc. , but to what extent is there concern about cutting its military capability . A feel . Give us this is one of the factors of the relationship. Can you be more graphic. Can you give us any more detail about concerns about our cuts to the military capability . I was in the United States, and those involved with projecting the governments published thewe strategic defense and security and as i october 2010, said in my opening remarks, the administration at that time, although there were underlaying , we were going to maintain a full spectrum of capabilities, that they were reassured that our defense spending would remain above the nato minimum of two percent, certainly throughout the life of this parliament, and that the numbers we were talking about for interventions in the future were scalable. They were not as great as we had wereed before, but they nevertheless a militarily significant number for continuing operations and for large, single operations. I talked about the niche areas. We weree surprise putting billions of dollars into ciber in this parliament and that the money was going to continue to go into intelligence and special forces, so we persuaded them this was a serious piece of work at the time, which was maintained with our role, and i forget exactly it was a veryt Senior Member of the u. S. Military said only a few months ago that there were worries about our ability to contribute and iure operations, think that at the government, we persuaded the administration in 2010 that we were maintaining a ambition asvel of far as our defense capabilities were concerned over the lifetime , through the 2020 horizon, but i do not think we persuaded everybody. If you look at some of the commentary at the time, the wall street journal and elsewhere, it was much more critical. The decision on aircraft carriers. So i think there was an undertow and icern even then, think the americans, the administration are by and large sitting out for the time to see what the key decisions are going to be in the next times. I do not think theyre going to be expecting major changes in the current one. Fault onwe must not where there is a material relationship. The military capabilities to give numbers. Capabilities. U. S. Inity to join the force and military intervention, or is it another area . Us, i think, find it easy to predict. I think i have said that i share the widely held view that we are not going to be engaged in major ground intervention for a long time, and that clearly is the afghanistan,q and and judging by the sort of numbers we had to put in the field in iraq and afghanistan, they are going much below the 6005 hundred, 7000 number we can deploy in a single operation over a period of time. It does not feel to me that we can do with much less than that. Had a significantly larger operation in the end with afghanistan. We were around that number. I think it would be difficult to imagine for the future if we ,anted to have that capability then i think the numbers are quite difficult to imagine coming down, but i think the americans will look at the areas where we have important dayto day capabilities, and so for ciber, special forces, obvious british expertise, and interoperability with the United States, a great deal of experience in those areas, with the transatlantic convention, and there are other things, as well. I mentioned the antimine , placing a lot of reliance on u. K. Capability, whether it is so important in 20 years time, i do not know. The skeptics with regards the relationship with the u. S. 2 failures in their eyes. The falklands. Climate change. The international treaty, etc. Wereur time when you there, can you point to i am sure you can, but highlight the successes and failures at attempting to get the u. S. To agree with us on something that was in our interest to where we had to make the argument. Mine were a bit of each. We woulde things where try, try, and try again, perhaps getting success in the end. I hesitate mentioning this with mr. Stewart here, but i think on afghanistan and the emphasis to be given to the reconciliation, that was something which the someous government put emphasis on, got relatively little traction with the bush administration, and began slowly with the Obama Administration, but it did become a central part of the Administration Policy from year one or year two of the Obama Administration. You can argue about whether it vigorously as it might have been, but that was something which was a very clear asked by the u. K. To the u. S. To adopt a different approach. Again, i think we got there in the and. The arms trade treaty you mentioned, that was something where we had initially quite a negative reaction to where i think not just british lobbying others brought the United States rounded to the , andion which was adopted the president , and on climate change, i think you need to look at this through quite a complicated prism. With the bush administration, there was no way through in our ideas metng at the federal level, so we had to concentrate on a very different strategy of trying to get action an agreement at the local and state level, and there was that which was continuing in my time at the end of the bush and we had them with florida and virginia and others. And this is without having to get out the issue, which was the absence of federal legislation. With the Obama Administration, they came from a different place, but they still were not able to get comprehensive climate legislation through, so many of those activities on lower levels were important diplomatically. You were just talking with the , and this wassses particularly promoted by the u. S. Chamber of commerce and by business groups in the United States. I think initially, the administration was a bit hesitant. Again, i do not claim the u. K. Was the only effective advocate, but i think we were one of those who early on sabe of bandages of this, and we were pushing not just our partners in the eu and the commission, but also a wide range of voices in the United States to adopt this. And he agreed. I mentioned that bp thing. That was an example of congressional legislation which we were able to influence. There was congressional legislation that came in with the big package, the big stimulus package of 2009. And the other European Union countries were able to at least tone down the america provisions so that at the federal level, it did not apply to the eu. There were a series of successes. Where othersn, have looked at the u. S. Round, afghanistan, is there anything else as a success that we have managed to achieve in british interests, without necessarily that, and also, can you just highlight this . Trying to persuade the americans. Well, i think we had examples. I would not have given those examples if i did not think we did not have a significant role. Bit, maybea little going back a little bit earlier. Another example where the u. K. , again, not alone. Very rarely are you completely alone, where the u. K. Has over a decade, certainly over the last few years, had a continuing , anuence on american policy approach which was not an easy thing to explain and negotiate in the United States 10 years ago. But we were, in the end, successful. Term, and since obama has been in office. You might want to put it to me if there are particular things you have got in mind. And you are talking about the Current Situation. The administration, to our idea, gave us adequate support at different times over the past two or three years, or just to put it into context, uncomfortable for us, not the withthey were advocating the state department and others in the United States, but this was not, fortunately, a moment where lives were at stake and which would be seen by the rest of the world as an absolutely for american Foreign Policy or even, perhaps, for hours, given all of the other things going on, so i agree with you that the sort of language severaly used on occasions was unhelpful and did not go as far as we would have liked. Taken a lot tove adjust that somewhat, but i am not sure if it goes with what we a reallyssing today as major foreignpolicy issue between us. Thank you. Major of the interventions that the two billio countries were working sidebyside on was iraq, and to this day, there are still questions about it, by this the butler inquiry, another inquiry, and currently, we have another inquiry, it is taking like four years. He lay is caused some by the United States. Is there anything you can add to that . I cannot, because there has. Een delays on the u. S. Side it was more recent than the time i was in post in washington, so those. T aware of there have been contacts on that issue. Statementere was a about that last week when the issue came up again, but because i do not know anything, i do not have any insight or knowledge about it, i hesitate to speak on it, but i would guess there would be two sets of i think thatand has been well documented over a couple of years. The discussions have been going u. S. U. K. Icular exchanges both before, during, and after the conflict, but secondly, maybe more recently, one reached with the United States itself. And the issue in u. S. Minds will be one of the factors over here, which is whether the Early Release of top level exchanges between Prime Ministers and if they are released well ahead of the normal time, in the political lifetimes of the people who were thelved, would that affect nature of the trust and confidence of each other for future president s and Prime Ministers and make them less likely to speak to each other crises . Tially in future i think that issue might be there. To my mind, my personal view is yes, on this sort of an issue, where you are talking about the so i dodamental issues, not terribly want to get involved in that. I realize it will be a contrary view, but i think there may well be a knock on effect for the future, and given that our country does derive advantage from the candor of the american as we hope the American Administration derives value from ours towards their end, i think if there were some inhibition over the future exchanges the volume of newsprint and others which has been devoted to , in warial relationship but president obama has described the relationship as being an essential one. That would more closely coincide with your analysis for the relationship . And essential relationship from thatsential one, and is more accurately reflecting how you see the relationship is . Myself think there is a huge difference between the two when it comes to us, your predecessor committee drew some conclusions about this, and when they did the report on the u. K. U. S. Relations last time. As a practitioner, i am very conscious that people get very hung up on the adjective on whether the relationship is special or not, and as a practitioner, whenever i used next twold spend the or three paragraphs explaining and inining my terms, 2011, the reason for putting emphasis on this is simply a different phrase, and as i said earlier, to emphasize the contemporary relevance and operational policy of it, so you get away from this sense that it in not stout just nostalgia. T to in i do not that they have declined to use the word special relationship, as well. And just linguistically, we can find out. I am pleased to hear you say that we should not consider this against a wave of nostalgia but about the current contemporary interests. Thank you. Last question. The report which was published just before the last general election, and in fact, what struck me was the interlocutorys of that time, advising us itts is not sensible to keep using this term because it does have all of those contexts which are being referred to as nostalgia. It is actually the americans seem more keen to use the word to reassure us been british people do to talk about the practicality. But even then, you say that they are using it to reassure us. I do not think that is always the case. I think they are using it because they regard the u. K. As a critical ally for the United States, with which they have a set of unique relationships, on which their security, at least in part, depends, and the more that we can embrace that and become less defensive and relate our interests in the thetionship to each side, interests of the day, i think the better, but i agree with you. I have been at one conference in america or meetings and america where it was used because it means something to them. When your committee was looking at this a few years ago, it was very much in the aftermath of the first months of the Obama Administration, where i think there were those feeling more pronounced than today that the Obama Administration was not interested in allies, and as i was trying to say in my opening remarks, i think the Obama Administration realize that far, andn had gone too that they needed to show that they could use allies to achieve things in the world. Having that set of functioning relationships, so i think that the backdrop of the previous operating on, it has changed somewhat. Not only in relation to the u. K. But more importantly, talks about the world and talks about the Building Blocks of american influence and power. Describing not one inquiry showing whatries, a valuable witness you are. Thank you very much for coming on. It is much appreciated. The meeting is over. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] up in a few moments, a senate Foreign Relations Committee Meeting on security concerns in south africa. After that, president obama speaking at the washington summit, and then a hearing looking at Digital Currency and whether it should be regulated by the federal government. This week on cspan, encore presentations of q a, beginning tomorrow with an anthropologist who talks about her recent book, edge chronicles garbage collection in new york city as she experienced it firsthand. Here is some of our interview. The story is very new york focused, but only in the particulars. The actual challenge of waste is a National Concern and simultaneously a deeply local concern. Any city, any town, any municipality. You have to answer the question, who is picking up the trash, and where does it go . And the particulars here are not so different from cities and other parts of the country or other parts of the world. Trucks, human labor, union issues, organizing routes. Through ast went radical transformation of how they organized the collection of routes in the city. It used to be based on the ward, and now it is called the garbage grid, and they had to roll it out very carefully and with a lot of forethought and in consultation with workers in the community, and it sounds like it thosecessful, but programs are hardly unique to new york. You can watch the entire interview tomorrow at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan as part of our encore presentation of q a. Years ago, i do not think anybody looked in their crystal someone onought that a College Campus would be streaming netflix onto an iphone to watch a movie. Out is what is happening there, that we have got these huge issues out there that the notnology and again, that you want to date yourself, but i remember in northwest ohio, it depended on the day if the antenna on the top of the house was working right, you had two channels, or maybe you got one channel, or maybe some days you did not have any channel, because it depended on the wind and other things. The technology has changed so rapidly, and i want to make sure we have things out there and the regulations and the laws on the books that spurred this innovation. On the cell phone side, about 3. 8 million jobs. Part ofology issues as the current congress, monday on the communicators, and at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan two. Theepresentatives from Defense Department and state department testified before a senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee about security concerns in north africa. One of the topics was the Current Situation in libya after last years consulate attack in benghazi. Other testimony came from experts familiar with the region. The entire hearing is one hour, 40 minutes. Let me call this hearing to order. This is the subcommittee hearing on the senate Foreign Relations committee, and i want to welcome two panels of excellent witnesses before us today to address political, economic, and security situation developments in north africa. We have two wonderful panels. I indicated with our first panel that we had an interesting day on the floor, and there will be some more votes later today. The Ranking Member has invited people to participate, as well, and we will likely be in and out, but i think it is a good idea to go ahead and get started. What i will do is give some opening comments and then turn it to the witnesses and ask them to comment for about five minutes each and then get into some q a and then repeat with the second panel the same basic format, allowing other senators who are here to ask questions, as well. This is my first hearing as chairman of this committee. I was chairman of another committee on till late july, and change iner the membership after the election of senator ed markey, there was a switching of the committee chairs, and i am very excited to tackle this important region as is described in this building as from marrakesh to bangladesh, and my chairmanship is beginning with a hearing on north africa, and within that, there are unmanageably large scope of real estate. We sometimes pay less attention to it than we should, and i want to begin here and especially in a propitious way, especially since the king of morocco is visiting a white house this week. I thought it was a good thing to do in coincidence with his visit. Three years ago, a young a wave ofnleashed protest across north africa, the broader middle east, and also across the world. Affectingpring is each of the countries in north africa, and some have maintained political continuity during the arab spring. We will likely hear about some Security Status and political reform status about each of those countries today. Tunisia and libya have undergone intense violent change. Dissipating in a National Dialogue, and the tunisians seem committed to a democratic process, but in each of these countries, there is significant work to do. There is regional debate about ofountability, transparency reforms, the effectiveness of government programs, economic liberalization of the world religion and military in public life, while the political and societal debates will go on for a long time, as they do here. The deterioration of security conditions recently has raised important questions and has raised the stakes certainly for local citizens and communities and also for the United States and our interest. Violent extremist groups appear to be exploiting borders in the region, and the weakness of Security Forces across north africa well along with the al anda, it is serious, capitalizing also on divisive identity issues as well as popular frustrations with the slow pace of reforms in these transitional states. Qim, we will have testimony about this, does not seem to pose a significant threat outside of north africa, but we are also concerned about its ability to strike at allied nations and at u. S. And other allied interests, and also these groups with regional arms trafficking and ties to other extreme organizations. Who aree have witnesses very well prepared to talk about this today. We have sought to encourage greater lyrical openness and participation in north africa while not undermining other Foreign Policy, including the efforts to fight terrorism. I want to hear about that balance. In the budget environment, which is very challenging, and i am on the Budget Committee itself, and we, if it works, will be the first example of a successful budget conference in a divided conference for many years, and one of the things we deal with is research limitations, so large increases in u. S. Assistance is not reasonable at this current time, so i want to hear about policies and tools to address challenges in north africa that do not come with high dollar figures but rely on innovation and Smart Investments and how we are coordinating and leveraging those investments together with our international partners. A few words about each of the countries in the region. Barack obama is a staunch security partner. We have a Free Trade Agreement with them. Or junior ports, just to use my own state, has strong partnerships with morocco. This is an important one to ratify and continue to express appreciation for a Longstanding Alliance that goes back to the 1770s. Senator menendez and i sent a letter to the president this week, encouraging the president to build upon this relationship. As a potentially positive example for how the u. S. Engages the rest of the region. Has a strongates dialogue with algeria. We want to hear about the algerian agenda. Our relationship with algeria is improving, including the enemy of the aqim. I want to hear about the algerian relationship being improved, where there are Economic Opportunities being lost every day as a result of that, and that would also involve the long disputed areas in the western sahara. And then the assassinations in 2013. Highitizens still have hopes for a successful democratic transition. Is is law must party engaging what appears to be real political and democratic dialogue. The National Dialogue. We will hear about that. Secular and islamist editions exist. Remaining an effective regulator of the political process. I am anxious to hear about the success of that dialogue and new sograms to foster tunisia progress. Libya is a very, very vexing challenge that this country knows well. The lack of security is the process, and we will hear from a panelist to is just back from libya. Fred from the carnegie institute. He landed just yesterday, where he has been studying the militias, and we look forward to his testimony. And it has ample natural resources, but libya needs Capacity Building and training. Militias need to be disarmed, which is a huge task, and we are worried about weapons proliferation, weapons finding gaza, andegypt, syria. The United States along with its partner is working with a with oursive system allies, and we will hear about that. There was the tragic situation in benghazi. Great Public Servants were killed. There has been a lot of attention on that and a lot of effort to affix blame and more importantly effort to learn what went wrong and what we can do to improve the safety of our embassy and security personnel not only in north africa but around the world. I have been happy as a member of the Foreign Relations committee to work with the department of state to implement some of the recommendations of the review board to make sure that we can continue to carry out vigorous and aggressive diplomacy but also take the steps that we need to keep our Embassy Personnel safe. Reward those and protect those and support those. Hisssador Chris Stevens and colleagues, what they were doing there, they believed in him proving the likelihood of libyans, and they felt that those were consistent, not inconsistent. Manysador stephens had so Close Friends at the state department in virginia. , wedr. On our second panel look forward to hearing from him. So this is about our current andus and our policies orientation and what it should be going forward. The want to break down barriers and hear about Economic Opportunities and the potential for economic integration. Talk about other initiatives such as the counterterrorism partnership, which works with 10 countries, including tunisia, morocco, and algeria. I will reserve some statements for the senator for when he arrives and moved to the panel. At me introduce to you our first panel. The ambassador is the acting secretary of state in the bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and. Erved as ambassador to imam he began his diplomatic career in 1980 and has served all over europe and the middle east. Another serves as the dbt assistant secretary of defense for African Affairs and the office of the secretary of defense. Served witht, she the secretary of defense for strategy and received a president ial rank award for her defensethe 20 10 review. Her nongovernmental experience includes work with the Foreign Policy magazine and the Nuclear Nonproliferation project. Panel,ally on the first the Deputy Assistant administrator for the middle east bureau of u. S. A id. Has fulfilled the duties of assistant administrator and oversees a large and varied portfolio that provides about 1. 5 billion dollars annually in assistance across the region, and she also served 14 years with the Defense Department in senior positions involving the near east and asia. I would like to ask the witnesses to deliver Opening Statements in the order in which i introduced you, and after that, we will get to questions. Youell, chairman, thank very much for the invitation to be here today. It is a particular honor to appear here with my colleagues along with the Deputy Assistant whom i enjoy, with working on a regular basis. We welcome the opportunity to speak to you on the issues you have just outlined, and i certainly look forward to answering any questions that you and your colleagues may have. I have a fuller statement which i asked to be submitted to the record. Without objection. And with your position permission, i would like to just simply summarize. North africa is a region of tremendous potential. Arab the birthplace of the awakening and is currently undergoing a difficult but critical transformation. Tunisia pursues efforts to achieve democratic promise of its 2011 revolution, and as libya continues to undertake its democratic transition while confronting numerous challenges on the political, security, and economic front. Morocco and algeria have undertaken a more gradual reform process. They still remain key instability and are assuming important roles in our global terrorism andat extremism. We enjoyed a strong Bilateral Partnership with morocco, a relationship that we look forward to strengthening during the visit of the king this week to washington. This is an opportunity to discuss the best means of promoting security and prosperity in the region. Under the king, the political system has gradually liberalized. A new constitution was adopted their first islam is led government one nationwide election. To supporttinue morocco as it undertakes these important reforms. Wealgeria, mr. Chairman, have also built a strong relationship, care to rise by our strong interests to fight terrorism and facilitate greater regional stability. In addition, we are focused on developing a more robust economic our new ship and supporting Civil Society development. We have encouraged algeria to continue to expand its regional stabilize role to neighboring states, which struggled to address terrorist and deal with borders. Our engagement with libya is absolutely essential, mr. Chairman. It is in our National Security interests to assure that libya becomes a stable and democratic partner. Faced with daily violence, the Libyan Government has been unable to address the countrys overlapping challenges. Futured ready to support elections in libya, as well as constitutional drafting and National Dialogue efforts necessary for security and governance to take root. As a part of this effort, we have agreed to train 5000 to 8000 members of a general purpose force, with italy and newu. K. To be the core of a libyan army. We are also in the process of beginning to implement a Global Security contingency fund, a Border Security program to provide technical expertise, training and equipment to build libyas Border Security capacity. Security is only part of the solution. We also welcome the opportunity with our partners to help the Libyan Government build its governance capacity. Finally, we continue to view tunisia as one of the regions best hopes for a Successful Transition to democracy. The assassination of an opposition politician in july led to calls for the dissolution of the government. Civil society mediators have been facilitating negotiations between the government and the opposition
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.