Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20150228

We have to do more outreach into the hispanic and africanamerican community. I think the ideas that we offer to those can to those communities are ideas of empowerment, toys, ideas of improving your station in life but if we dont show up, we cannot have those conversations, so it may sound simple to say, but showing up is going to be a big part of that equation. It we can be present we can have a conversation, and if we can have a conversation, we can persuade people of our ideas. Host thank you for joining us. Guest thank you for the opportunity. Host tomorrow, with talk about the conservative agenda and cpac from matt schlapp. Will also hear from ron pollack. Thanks so much for joining us today. Washington journal will be back tomorrow. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] next, a discussion on the obama administrations foreignpolicy goals with deputy secretary of state Antony Blinken. Then a discussion on Cyber Security with nsa manager nsa director mike rogers. On monday, deputy secretary of state Antony Blinken spoke about u. S. Foreignpolicy issues. Among the topics, iran has nuclear program, relations with china and russia, and the failed ceasefire agreement between ukraine and russia. The former deputy security advisor also discussed president s policy priorities and u. S. Leadership in the world. This is about an hour and 20 minutes. Before we start, i want to introduce general powell who has been giving me questions to ask. General powell, what question should we start with . If you dont know, im not going to tell you. Youve got a great group here and im sure youre going to have an excellent discussion. And i think tony is uniquely qualified to deal with the issues of the day and to answer the questions that might arise. In an earlier session walter and i spent an hour and a half talking about these issues. But doing it in a way thats going to be for teenagers, kids, high school kids. Which is where i spend most of my time with students now. Because nothing i could do about my past, little i could do about the future, except watch it. But theres a lot i can do about the real future, which is our youngsters coming along in a nation thats going to be increasingly minority. Weve got to prepare these minority kids for the leadership positions that will be waiting for them. Thats kind of my passion and i thank walter for his support in this over the years. I thank the Aspen Institute for what they do on a daily basis. Now ask a question, for gods sakes, dont just sit there. Thank you very much, general. Its my pleasure to introduce the deputy secretary of state tony blinken whos been a great Public Servant and also a friend of the Aspen Institute. I know youre about to embark on a trip this coming week, so why dont you just open up by telling us what youre doing and what we should be doing about it. Walter, thank you very much. Its great to be here with all of you. I have to say, following secretary powell even briefly makes me empathize with two people in particular. Alan and rossy. They were the act that followed the beatles on the ed sullivan show. So with that said, actually thought id spend a few minutes, then we can get into the specifics of that with you walter on some things well be doing next week, including going to ukraine and visiting with our close European Partners. Just sort of stepping back for a second and putting some of where we are in a little bit of perspective, because there are constant narratives out there about u. S. Leadership or not, u. S. Retreat from the world or not. And i think its useful to create a little context for the discussions that were about to have. I would maintain that never has the United States and its government been more engaged in more places than at this char this particular time. And if you look at what weve done in recent months and in recent years mobilizing, quite literally, International Coalitions and countries to deal with isil, to deal with ebola, to deal with Climate Change, to deal with ukraine and afghanistan, you see that leadership in action. You saw it recently this summer when we brought the leaders of 50 african countries to washington for the first African Leaders summit here in washington connecting them with the private sector, putting in place a new foundation for moving forward on growth, on collective security, and building institutions. You saw it in Central America, the Vice President brought together countries of the Interamerican Development bank to propose a new deal for Central America where, if their leaders stand up and take responsibility for dealing with problems of governance, of corruption, of security, we and likeminded countries in the region will support them. And you see it in asia. I just got back from japan south korea, and china. And you see it in an effort thats been ongoing for several years, that is the socalled rebalance, where we are in a very material and concrete way building institutions, strengthening our partnerships with existing allies building new partnerships with new ones opening up even further to trade through tpp. And building a more cooperative relationship with china even as we deal directly with our differences. And youre seeing it in places like iran and cuba. Think about this. The change that was made with cuba, the possibility of an agreement with iran at least on the nuclear program, opens the prospect in the space of about nine months, two of the most difficult elements in the psychology of American Foreign policy for the last decades will be in a new and different place. Doesnt solve the problems. Well still have, if we do get a nuclear agreement, acute problems with the way iran acts in the region and beyond. But quite significant. And the reason i say all this again, because there is this notion somehow that america is in retreat or is not leading. Again, i think nothing could be further from the truth. Maybe the best way to test the proposition is to think of what is probably a Favorite Movie among many people in this room at least one that youre subjected to just before christmas every year, its a wonderful life. We know what happened to bedford falls when George Bailey was out of the picture. We know what would happen in each of these instances i just talked about if the United States was out of the picture. Imagine where we would be for all of the deficiencies and challenges that remain, where would we be without the United States in the campaign against isil . Where would we be when it comes to dealing with Climate Change . Where would we be on ebola ukraine, et cetera . The fact of the matter is we are leading. So the question really should be and the debate should center around, how are we leading . With what means, toward what ends . That is the proper subject for debate and one that im very happy to engage. Now, you were going to say that youre going next week to europe, mainly to deal with the ukraine issue. Explain what that trip is about and what youre going to do. Well, we have secretary horace is in europe now, hes working on iran, hes also working closely with our European Partners on ukraine. It is a very challenging situation. Let me put it in perspective. Because i think there too its important that we have specifics. There are a couple of big principles at stake in ukraine. Because you can make the argument that what happens in ukraine doesnt go to our fundamental strategic interests. But i think when you look at the principles at stake there really is a lot here that we need to be mindful of and it explains why weve been so focused on this and why weve been leading the effort to put pressure on russia to reverse what is going on in ukraine. First, the notion you can change the status quo by force in particular a big country can do that to a small one, is not a Police Department we want to is not a precedent we want to allow to stand in the beginning of the 21st century. Were that to happen, i think youd see serious and very negative repercussions, not just in europe, but in other parts of the world. Second, and this is something that doesnt get a lot of attention. When i served in the clinton separation, one of the great in the Clinton Administration, one of the great achievements early on was making sure that the successor countries to the soviet union that inherited Nuclear Weapons belarus, kazakhstan, ukraine actually gave up those Nuclear Weapons. And in the case of ukraine, the deal was this. They said, well give them up but we want our sovereignty and territorial integrity guaranteed. And three countries signed on to those guarantees. The United States, the United Kingdom, and russia. Imagine what this says now if we allow russia to, in effect ignore and tear up that agreement, the socalled budapest memorandum many of you are familiar with. What does it say to a country like north korea that has Nuclear Weapons and were trying to persuade to give them up . What does it say to a country like iran that doesnt yet have Nuclear Weapons, were trying to get iran to forswear them, if the kind of assurances the countries with Nuclear Weapons want to give them up are in effect ignored . Big things at stake here. I was just rereading russia hand where he talks about negotiating that. That budapest memorandum actually commits and obligates us to certain things. Will you explain what those obligations are . We made a commitment to stand with two other countries, ironically, for several propositions. And critical among them were the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of ukraine. And that has been grossly violated over the last year. So where are we . I think there are theres a good news piece of this and a bad news piece of this. The good news is this. Because of the pressure we were able to exert with president obama leading throughout this process in working with the europeans, getting them to exert the pressure with us, keeping the unity that was so necessary to making that pressure effective, we did create space for ukraine to have two successful elections and produce probably the most effective government that its had since its been independent. We created space for ukraine to sign the Association Agreement with the european union, which was part of the cause of the crisis in the first place. But what we havent seen unfortunately, is the separatist land grab fueled by russia supplied by russia, organized in many cases by russia that has not stopped. There was a basis for stopping it in the mins agreements. The mihnnsk agreements. The first ones concluded in september, now an Implementation Plan that was agreed by the countries in question just a couple of weeks ago with germany and frances leadership. Theres a clear way out there. If russia makes good on the commitments it made in these agreements there is what we call an offramp. If russia takes that offramp the pressure thats been exerted, the sanctions that have been exerted, those begin to be removed. You always have the crimea problem and thats significant and thats not going away any time soon and the pressure wont go away there. But for the east it could and it should. Russia is playing a huge strategic cost for what president putin has gained it in in ukraine. We see the devastating impact on the economy, taking deeper and deeper root. Weve seen capital flight of a rather extraordinary proportion. More than 150 billion over the last year. Weve seen a virtual standstill in foreign direct investment. Weve seen the ruble at an alltime low, despite the fact that theyve spent over 100 billion in reserves to try and bail it out. Weve seen the country get ratings of junk bond status from the major rating agencies. Weve seen growth go from about 2. 5 to zero, theyre basically in a recession. The drivers of the economy in the future have actually been singled out for the sanctions program, particularly the Energy Sector where the Technology Russia needs to actually take the next step in exploiting more difficult resources will be denied them. So this is not a good path. Also, its worth pointing out that to the extent the russians have gained crimea and may now have this foothold in the east they really have lost ukraine. The country is now more united and more focused and westernoriented than its ever been in its history of independence. Nato is more energized than its been in recent years. There is now a greater seriousness of purpose about Energy Security in europe than weve seen in recent years. In other words, strategically president putin has precipitated virtually everything he sought to prevent. My concern is that hes been left with playing the nationalist card because theres not much else left to play. The combination of the sanctions, obviously the fall in oil prices, mismanagement of the economy, all of those things dont give him a strong economic hand to play. So you play the nationalist card and it work in the shortterm. You see that in his numbers. The problem with the nationalist card is you have to keep playing it. As soon as you stop playing it then people start to focus on all the things that are going wrong. Thats why we try and continue to try to propose an offramp that allows him to move away from the direction that this is going. Right now, the critical thing is to see the obligations and commitments made in mincing, minkssk, both in september and the Implementation Plan that was reached a week or so ago. Those commitments need to be implemented. There needs to be a ceasefire. The heavy weapons need to be pulled pack. Ukraine has certain obligations too in terms of moving forward on decentralization legislation. Critically, the International Border has to be restored between russia and ukraine. Absent that border its basically russia has a free hand to throw if that doesnt happen do we arm the ukrainians . This is something that has been on the table and remains on the table as a possible course of action. Let me say a couple of things. First, we provided over the last nine months or so about 150 120 million, 130 million worth of security assistance. Its not just the infamous meals ready to eat. By the way, meals ready to eat are kind of important. If your soldiers arent eating theyre probably not going to be able to do a good job. Beyond that weve had counter radars that have been very important, night vision goggles, kevlar vests, et cetera cetera. We dont think that this conflict is going to be solved militarily. And the hard part about thinking about lethal assistance, even defensive, to the ukrainians, is that you do that and the russians are likely to match and it top it and double it and triple it. So where does that lead . On the other hand, theres obviously a compelling case to be made for helping the ukrainians defend themselves against aggression. Thats what weve been doing and thats why the question of additional defensive assistance remains very much on the table. Let me move to iran. Were going to do that, then im going to open it up because everybody here im sure has questions. Secretary kerrys been in geneva this weekend and he seems now to be getting closer and i think has even told people at the state department, perhaps in repair in prepare in case there is an agreement, how were going to sell it, what were going to do with congress. Can you give me the outlines what was you think that agreement could be . So where we are, first of all, is weve done a lot of hard work. And the secretarys done extraordinary work in trying to get the elements of an agreement in place. Were not there yet. Whether well get there as we sit here today, i cant tell you. We are making progress. Serious discussions, hard discussions. And moving, but were not yet there. But at the heart, any agreement has to do a couple of things. And this is what it should be judged on if we get there. The most critical thing is, as a practical matter, it has to cut off irans pathways to fissile material for a nuclear weapon. So what does that mean . It means that they have potentially a pathway through their facilities that are uraniumbased. Tauns, which has most things on the surface. That as a practical matter needs to be cut off. They have a plutonium program at the iraq reactor. That too needs to be cut off. And then the fourth pathway, that is a covert program, needs to be dealt with, principally through transparency inspections, access, so that we have confidence that they wont be able to pursue that. Now, what wed be looking at, what we have been looking at and the measure that weve set is, we want to make sure that on all of these pathways, we have confidence that were iran to break out of them, that is to decide to renege on its commitments or cheat, that it would take at least a year for iran to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon. Did israel initially agree to that framework . There is a look, i think from the israeli perspective from everyones perspective, if we could achieve zero enrichment in iran, that would be great. So i think if you ask the israelis i suspect theyd continue to say that would be their objective. The fact is iran has mastered the fuel cycle. We cant sanction that away, we cant bond that away, we cant we cannot bomb that away, we cannot argue that away. Most of our partners i think have accepted that that proposition. The question is not whether or not you say most of our partners, does that include israel . Im talking about the ones who are negotiating with us, that is in this group in the p5 1. The question is whether you can design a program that is so constrained, so limited, so checked, so monitored, that you have confidence that they will not be able to produce fissile material for weapons should they choose to do so in less than a year. Which gives you, should that take place, plenty of time to do something about it. Keep in mind two other things. Its not just the fissile material. You actually need a weapon. Our experts believe while they were pursuing a weaponization program until about 2003, that was put on that was halt the. Halted. You also need a way to deliver the weapon. That goes to the missile program. Then even if you got all of that, when it comes to fissile material, the idea that most countries would actually break out for one weapons worth of material is pretty unlikely. So weve been very, very conservative about this. And if were able to achieve that, then i think we would be confident in moving forward. The other thing thats important is this. In any of these situations you always have to ask as compared to what . So if theres no agreement, what happens . Well, a lot depends on why theres no agreement. If we are seen as being the recalcitrant party, thats going to make it very difficult to sustain the sanctions coalition that weve spent so much time building up. Congress put in place very strong sanctions. Has done a very good job on that. But the sanctions are much less effective if other countries dont join in implementing them and enforcing them. And this president has spent enormous time building and strengthening that coalition. If that starts to go away, the pressures off and it moves in a bad direction. The other alternative is potential military action. And i think its clear that, you know, one could certainly set back the program for some period of time. And that if it comes to that someday. But youre also probably looking at setting it back, not stopping it. Because again, the iranians have the knowledge. Theyll build it back up. And it will probably be driven underground. So thats not an ideal solution. Of course with military action there tend to be unintended consequences that are something how important is it in such a deal that the iranians come clean about what they were doing and the International Agencies where theyve not exactly come clean . The iaea has been, as many of you know, been engaged with the iranians to try to do just that, to get transparency on what has taken place. What they were trying to do in the past. And that is important. And i think so is that part of a deal you think . Its technically separate from the deal in the sense theres a separate dialogue going on with the iaea. But we would like to see satisfaction of that. I think im sorry, so youre linking those two now . Its important for the iaea and iran to come to conclusions about the socalled possible military dimensions of the program. The most important thing, though, when you think about this, Going Forward, that is putting in place the regime that we need and that our partners need to give us the greatest possible assurances that iran is making good on its commitments not deviating from them, not cheating on them. And that goes to what kind of inspection regime you have, what kind of transparency. And what has to result from any agreement is the strongest, most intrusive inspection and Access Program that any country has seen. Because iran has forfeited the trust of the International Community you think youll be able to get an intrusive inspection . That will be a test of any agreement. I think what weve seen already in the interim agreement is much greater access than the International Inspectors have had before. And in places that they didnt have it before. Whats interesting among other things about it is theyve had access along different points of the production chain for fissile material. For example, the mines and mills. Not just the places where the centrifuges are spinning. The more you have of that the greater the certainty you can have that iran is making good on its commitments. How do you respond to netanyahus comment that it was astonishing that you were Going Forward without having resolved the coming clean irissue . Issue . I got a call from israels again, thats an ongoing process. Keep in mind, even if there is an agreement, the actual relief that would come to iran in terms of the suspension of sanctions and the ultimately lifting, the repeal of sanctions, they would have to make good on their commitments upfront, and i think one of the things we would expect to see is some resolution of the issues with the iaea. Do you think its problematic that netanyahus coming to speak to congress . So let me say a couple of things about that. First, Prime Minister of israel is always welcome in the United States. To speak any place, any time. I think whats unfortunate here is the way this came about. And because of the way it came about, it turned it into a political issue. And the relationship with israel should not be a partisan or political issue. The fact of the matter is, over the course of the last six years, when it comes to israels security, in my judgment no administration has done more than this administration. And the relationships at every level, whether its among the political leaders, the intelligence officials, the defense officials, i dont think theres been more coordination dialogue exchanged than weve seen in the last years ever before. In the last six years ever before. And where it really matters. The provision of what israel needs to defend itself and protect itself. This has been an exceptional period. Let me give you one quick example. This is something i happened to see up close and personal. This past summer during the gaza crisis i was in my office at the white house at the time. I got a call from israels ambassador. Id like to come see you on an urgent basis. Came over about 8 30 at night. And he said, we really need an urgent resupply and funding to buy more intercepters for iron dome, the Missile Defense system that has saved many, many lives. And he and the Defense Attache ran through the substance of why they needed it and why they needed it then and there. The very next morning, this was on a thursday night. Friday morning, i was the oval in the oval office with the president and i ran through what i heard from the israelis. And he said, make it happen. And by tuesday, we had 250 million from congress to do that. So whatever the tensions whatever the disagreements on various issues, when it comes to the core of the relationship that is, our absolute commitment to israels security, its never been stronger. If you get a deal that you feel is good and the rest of the negotiating partners feel is good, to what extent do you think you need Congress Approval and for what aspect do you or do you not need Congress Approval . Congress is an absolutely integral part of this entire process. From takeoff to flight to landing. The sanctions regime that congress legislated and then the International Component that we helped bring to bear, without that iran would not be at the table. Simple as that. Congress was absolutely critical in getting us to the point that were at. Going forward, congress is going to be critical because, as i said, what were looking at doing if we get an agreement is initially suspending sanctions which the president can do under his own authority. But then ultimately ending them. And congress has to do that. And the reason we do it this way or we propose to do it this way, is that having the sanctions suspended, creates real leverage to make sure that iran makes good on its commitments. As soon as you end them, that may take some of the in other words, youre not going to go to congress and ask that the sanctions be ended right away . Not right away. What we want to see if we get an agreement is iran demonstrating that its making good on commitments. Then congress has a very strong role to play in insisting on that, and then not actually ending as opposed to suspending sanctions until iran has demonstrated it is making good. David . Thanks very much. Good to see you, tony. One more question on iran while were still on this. Many people in congress who ive spoken with seem surprised that at the end of this agreement whenever this agreement ends the iranians are basically free to do what any other signatory of the iaea treaties and so forth they could go back and build the number of centrifuges in the tens of thousands the Supreme Leader has discussed. Tell us what were supposed to think about that. Thats a big israeli concern. Its a big concern in congress. And also tell us how this concept of a phased agreement in which the iranians would be frozen for ten years, then may be able to build up slowly might work to alleviate those concerns. So without getting into any of the details of the negotiations, because keep in mind, whats so challenging about these is that its a classic it really is the classic example of nothings agreed until everythings agreed. And because of these elements are so interrelated, sometimes you hear one thing comes out in the media. Allegedly something were proposing to do. And absent the context, its often misunderstood. Proposing to do. And absent the context, its often misunderstood. Let me give you one quick example of that, then ill answer the question directly. Theres a lot of back and forth sometime in the media about how many centrifuges might iran have at the end of this process . We see different numbers. The reason that is going to be a subject of negotiation and the reason that that number in the abstract is meaningless is because if youre looking at assuring that iran must have it must take at least a year for it to produce enough fissile material for a weapon, the number of centrifuges is an important component of figuring that out. So is the type of centrifu, so is the configuration, so is the stockpile of material that theyre allowed to work with. Depending on the configuration of those elements, you could have more or fewer centrifuges and still get to your one year. Thats why, looking at some of these elements in isolation is really the wrong way to go. With regard to the end of the process, that is, lets say theres an agrmenteend it lasts an agreement and it lasts for years, in the double digits. What happens at the end . And the fact is this. There will be a permanent ban on iran pursuing weaps activity. Pursuing weapons activity. It will have to apply the Additional Protocol in perpetuity. There will be extensive iaea safeguards that are very significant. And during the process and during the agreement itself, for however long it lasts what we will be learning about the program, every person involved, virtually, if not every nook and cranny, that base of knowledge will exist beyond the duration of the agreement. And then, of course, we would retain the same capacity and probably a greater capacity than we have now to deal with any efforts by iran to actually go to some kind of nuclear weapon. The Bush Administration put on the table the proposition that iran would be treated as a nonnuclear weapon state after it complied for some period of time with any agreement. And thats exactly what were doing. That is the purpose of this very, very challenging exerce. Is challenging exercise. Is at some point in the future, having demonstrated that its making good on its commitments iran would be treated as a nonnuclear weapon state. But it is going to have a were going to have a knowledge of whats going on that far exceeds what we have now. And again, there will be a permanent ban on weapons. If we see it moving in that direction, we would be able to do something about it. We will have the same capacity we have today and probably a greater capacity to act on it then we however long it is for the duration of the agreement. Given the point you just made about having to see the agreement as a whole to get to the oneyear breakout period have the selective leaks been very problematic and have they come from israel . I think that selective leaks on anything create more confusion than daylight. And thats unfortunate. You know, one of the challenges of this business is that and i know david appreciates this is that we and government are constantly trying to plug the leaks and our friends like david are constantly trying to pry them out. I think the challenge is whenever there is a leak, whether its on the iran negotiations or anything else, one of the obligations that those writing about them have i think is to give it the, if possible, the context and the explanation. So things are not seen in isolation. Speaking of david, who leaks david ignatius. Well go to the goliaths after this. Tony, let me ask you about two issues that will arise if you do get an agreement. And the first is the i would say likely demand of other countries in t region that they be allowed in the region that they be allowed to have the same Nuclear Capability threshold capability, with enrichment centrifuges, etc. , that the agreement will grant with ron. Had even vision dealing with that problem . Second the day after the agreement is the day before irans threat to Regional Security through its proxy through its Foreign Policy, yemen, beirut, baghdad going to be there . How does the administration envision dealing with that problem in a world where you have that agreement . Great. Thanks, david. So with regard to whether other countries may see this as a model to follow, i think its about the last model any other country would want to follow. What is the iranian model . It as decade or more of sancons, of isolation, of economic decline, as a result of its efforts to pursue enrichntme and pursue enrichment and reprocessing programs. Our policy remains that countries that dont have that technology ideally should not have it. The other thing that i think makes iran no role model for anyone is that, as i noted, any agreement is going to have an exceptionally intrusive access inspections monitoring regime. I doubt strongly other countries in the region or elsewhere would want to have what iran is going to have to accept if theres going to be any agreement. So i really dont see it as a model that anyone else would want to follow. With regard to that Regional Security, youre exactly right. I want to make it very clear that even as we pursued this agreement with iran on the nuclear program, we have worked very, very vigorously to push back and counter and enforce the various sanctions and mechanisms that are out there to deal with irans actions and behaviors that are profoundly objectionable. Whether it is support for terrorism, whether it is destabilizing activities in other countries that threaten some of our partners and allies, or indeed for that matter its own activities at home. And so what youve seen throughout this effort is the very vigorous enforcement of sanctions, including in the nuclear area, which we made very clear we would continue to strongly enforce all the existing sanctions and we have. But also in the terrorism area. In the issue of destabilizing other countries. We have, over the course of the agreement, the sanctioned more than 100 entities and individuals in all of those different areas. Weve interdicted shipments to various countries that have been problematic. Weve continued to vigorously enforce and monitor all of the antiproliferation requirements. And weve also worked over the last 6. 5 years to build up the capacity of our partners in the gulf to deal with iranian aggression and destabilizing activities. We forked very closely with the gcc. Weve put in place different capabilities that strengthen their ability to deal with problems. We are working with the gcc as an entity. In fact, one of the things that we did in terms of arms, the supply of arms and weapons, they can be treated as an entity for the purpose of acquiring arms from the United States. So all of that will continue as long as the activities that iran is pursuing continues. Let me just add two things without exaggerating. First of all, inherently, the biggest threat to stability in the region would be iran armed with a nuclear weapon. So to the extent the agreement takes that off the table, that is profoundly in the interests not only of the United States but also of countries in the region. Second i think that there are some elements in iran that are trying to approach their policies around the world in a somewhat more pragmatic fashion. Not because they are necessarily good guys or like us, but because they see it as in irans interests. To the extent that those people emerge in a stronger position , and those who are pursuing the most noxious policies around the world are in a different position, that wouldnt be a bad thing either. But again, thats not a big aspect of this, but at least its something to consider. You just said something that caught my ear, which is that youre allowing the gcc to acquire weapons directly. Do you think that should or could lead to a path where some arab nations create their own as the general in egypt, the saudis, the emirates, and others have talked about. Is that something we should encourage . We hear more and more from our partners interests in doing Something Like that. Youre heang from the jordanians, saudis, emirates egyptians, different ideas in that direction. Moving from talking about it to acting on it, of course, is a challenge. But their ability to come together and act in a unified way to deal with challenges would be a good thing. Now, were seeing some of that in the context of the anisiti antiisil coalition where these countries are flying with us and flying together, and thats helpful. But i think seeing this kind of initiative coming out of the region, coming out of these countries, is important. Theyre are starting to put in place practical elements. Picking up on isil, you and the Vice President have spent probably as much time focused on iraq as anybody else in the administration over the past six years. How do you assess the performance of the government so far . On the ground, have you seen changes in the relationship between the that he government and the Sunni Community . Secondly, on libya, given the egyptian action and the aftermath of the beheading of the coptic christians, should we view libya as a third front in the campaign against isil . Thank you. I think the government has taken significant strides to try to improvement the relationship with the Sunni Community and create buyin so that community sees its future not with isil , but with iraq. Its a work in progress. Its usually challenging. I think theyre in the middle of it, not at the end of it. We saw the formation of a more inclusive government. We saw the naming of a sunni defense minister. We saw the Prime Minister take important steps, for example disbanding the office of the commander in chief, which had been Prime Minister malikis way of having control over the military outside the chain of command. That was disbanded. Dozens of generals we dismissed who either ineffective or had secretary and agendas. Weve seen legislation that had been stalled start to move including on debathification. The council of ministers sent it back to the council of representatives a couple of weeks ago, theres back and forth there. That legislation will probably take time allowing sunni tribes the part of the Security Force defending their own communities. To train, and pay for, and integrate with the iraqi Security Forces tribal fighters. They made a commitment to do that with 7500. Primarily in anbar and innua, and theyve reached that number. So on all of those fronts were seeing progress. We also saw a budget that was passed that provides significant resources for the sunni governance. On the other hand, one of the big challenges has been that as the iraqi Security Forces in some places have moved to take back territory lost to isil, in the early going the Shiite Militia were a critical component of their success. A number of those militia have been responsible for abuses and for revenge on the Sunni Community that had nothing to do with isil, they were victimized by it. Thats something that needs to be reined in in a very serious manner. Whats interesting has been that leaders in the shia community, especially the grand ayatollah sistani, have very publicly pushed back on the abuses of the shia militia. I would say its a work in progress. But whats critical is, in taking back the territory lost to isil, the integration of the tribal fighters with the iraqi Security Forces. Were intimately involved in that. Were putting them together at the al assad base where we have trainers. As that moves forward, then i think youll see that, you know, abadis making Real Progress in actually showing the Sunni Community that the future is with iraq and not with isil. James . And libya. Libya. So libya presents a real challenge. Because it to the extent that it becomes mired in civil war and truly chaotic, then it becomes a natural area that extremists will look to for a haven. Because they prey on places that have weak governments, weak Security Forces, and are in conflict. So we have a very strong incentive to try and prevent that from happening. Right now, theres a significant effort under way led by the United Nations to try and form a National Unity government. The only good thing thats emerged from the recent rociates recent atrocities in libya conducted by isil or affiliates is it seems to have marginally concentrated the minds of all the Different Actors that theres something more dangerous at stake in the differences they have. That is the potential for isil and affiliated groups to get a real strong foothold in libya. So that may help us get to a to get a unity government. If that happens, then the International Community is in a better place to provide the assistance libya needs and start to build the bulwark against extremists taking root in libya. Switching continents. Asia you were just out there. Two related debates. How allpowerful is xi jinping now . Is there anything left of collective leadership in china . And the other is a narrative i see taking shape, when things went politically sour in china after xi arrived in power. As to what we see now. As far as fairly tight repression that began in 1990 nine or going back to maybe 1989. Where do you see him now . Look, i think it would be hard for me or for anyone else to really decipher exactly what is going on internally in china in terms of the sort of internal power politics of it. But it does seem, as a sort of outside observer, that the president has worked hard to consolidate his authority and his power and has had some success in doing that. What i can talk about really is the state of the relationship and what were trying to do together. I think that what we have seen, especially over the last year or so, is weve expanded the foundation for cooperation. Were working together in more places productively than we have i think at any time in the past. And so just at the end of the year, as you know and saw, the leadership that we were able to exert with china on Climate Change was significant. Chinas efforts to deal with ebola, in part at our urging were significant. And bend that, the military to military relationship is in a better place than its been as a result of efforts, exchanges confidencebuilding measures, et cetera. Going forward into this year with the state visit to president xi and a pretty active agenda, we have i think the ability to continue to expand and deepen some of that cooperation. At the same time, part of this relationship is being direct and forthright about our differences. And not trying to sidestep them or ignore them. That is exactly the nature of the conversations that i had when i was out there, and obviously, others have had, and the secretary of state, the president , etc. But i think when i step back, i guess i think about two things. When i try to imagine how china should be looking at this or might want to think about looking at this. And i had these conversations with some of our counterparts. First, one of the primary sources of friction as you know jim, better than anyone in the region region, is chinas maritime activities in the south china, south china sea, etc. This has caused a number of countries to come to us in ways they havent in the past. One of the things i suggested to counterparts in china in some of our meetings, you know, our countries are obviously very different. Different systems, different evolutions, etc. And this was a little simplistic but nonetheless relevant. And that is in many ways, china now, at least in the region, is where the United States was after world war ii. Then our leaders had to decide how they would use our emerging power on the world scene. And they made incredibly wise decisions to take the lead in creating institutions, writing rules, establishing norms, that bound us. And so on one level, restrained the full exercise of our power. But at the same time, had the incredible beneficial effect of telling other countries, oh, you dont have to band together against the United States to check its power, because you have a voice, you have a say you have the ability to help lead the direction of the world. And i suggested to some of our colleagues in china that this was relevant and interesting history as they thought about their approach to their emerging power. The other thing id say is this. When you think about the wealth of a nation today, in the past we defined it classically, how many people do you have . How big is your land mass . Whats the size of your military . Whats the abundance of your Natural Resources . All of those things are critically important and the good news for the United States is, were doing very well, our wealth is great in all those areas. But i think there is a very strong consensus that in the 21st century, the true wealth of the nation is measured by its Human Resource and the ability a country to maximize that resource, to allow it to debate, to create, to innovate, to think for itself. There we also have, i think, a position of great prominence and privilege in the world. s something too that our chinese friends might want to reflect about. Kimberly dozer, maybe you can get congress bowmans microphone and move up a little bit. Thanks. Press the red button yeah. Twopart question on countering violent extremism. First of all, how do you keep the pressure on . And second of all, how do you deal with the fight over what to call the militants . On cve a number of people i spoke to who attended the meetings this past week said great ideas, but the same ideas as before. And the moment the attention is gone, theres not enough money theres not enough consistency. And in terms of calling them islamic militants versus criminal extremists, which are your arab partners that asked you to call them criminal extremists instead of the other . And how do you keep the republican comments about this from destroying your neutrality . Ive got to say i sat through a big part of the meeting last week and then read the parts that i wasnt able to stay for. I learned a tremendous amount. From listening to people who had been confronting this problem in different places and different aspects of the problem around the world. And just for that reason alone i thought it was an incredibly invaluable exercise. But it also builds i think it builds solidarity and a common plan of action Going Forward. So let me just say a couple of things quickly and ill get to the specific questions. First, one of the questions we grapple with is, why do we see this . Why is this happening . And particularly, youve seen a significt expansion in the number of foreign fighters. People who travel from one country to another to get into the fight or to conduct acts of terrorism, more accurately. And one of the things that was striking, i think, in listening to this is that, you know theres actually no one story. When you talk to the experts who have had a chance to talk to people who have gone from one country to another to join extremist groups, its an incredible mix. Some are pious. Some are not. Some are troubled, some are incredibly welladjusted and would do very well in their societies if they stayed put. Some seem to have a humanitarian calling because they believe some of the false stories that are told to them. Others are attracted by the notion of adventure and thrillseeking. And then some, of course actually are committed to the sort of totalitarian vision that isil and other groups have. So one of the first challenges are, at least one of the things i picked up is that theres , actually no one story. Which makes it even more complicated to deal with. If there was one driving reason or one clear explanation for why people engaged in these activities, it would be a lot easier to deal with. Now, there are some common denominators that did come out. One of the driving things is a perception amongst some that somehow, islam is under threat. And, again, this is a per verted narrative. But thats one of the elements that seems to come out. Another element that seems to be something of a common denominator is individuals who feel like they have no stake in the societies that theyre in. And no future. That, too, can be a driver. A lack of Critical Thinking skills. It is a common denominator in the studies that have been done. And then, of course, in the countries in question themselves, state repression corruption, etc. , are all drivers. And, of course, for those of us who are dealing with foreign fighters were coming back, some of these folks are coming back disillusioned because the stories they we told by isil or other groups turned out not to be true. Hanefully, they can be reintegrated. Others are coming back deeply troubled. They have to be helped. But then youre going to have a very dangerous court to come back with experience with skills further radicalized who are , going to try and make trouble at home, and they have to be dilt with very drektly. Have to be dealt with directly. So what do you do about all of this . I think there are two components, at least, in what weve been trying to do. These are people who are beyond the reach of reason. We go at them with everything we have. That is why we had done in the case of our soul, build a Strong Military component. We are working with other countries to cut off financing. And we need to work on the message, that narrative, to get at the appeal. Home and security borders, all of that. Vitally important and were pouring tremendous amount of energy and resources in that but has to be in collaboration with others. But equally important, and is not an either or, choose one or the other. Prevention is usually important, too. We want to try to counter the appeal so that those who are susceptible to signing up are fewer in number. I think it is interesting. Some of the things we heard last week, what are some of the tools in doing this . One of the most interesting things that jumps out at me was one word parents. Most parents dont want their kids to go off to syria or iraq. They desperately want to finds way to convince their kids if they get any knowledge that thats what theyre thinking not to do it. Working with parents, with communities, giving them tools, that can be effective. The internet has been a profoundly powerful tool for extremists to attract recruits. This is a challenge we are deeply engaged in. Rick stangl has been doing tremendous work there. For obvious reasons we are often not the best messenger. Getting countries to step up not just countries, identifying the right individuals who actually have the ability to reach people, that is critically important and were working on that. Two other things, this notion, and is is a much longerterm effort, how do you convince people in france or germany or denmark, or the United States, that they have a stake in the future of their societies, and that they dont become as susceptible as they are to some of these extremist narratives , which is important. Two of the three Charlie Hebdo attackers went to prison, became radicalized. That is something we also need to get a grip on. To come to your question about the socalled islamic label. I think it is a profound mistake to put that label on what were seeing for two reasons. First of all, it is exactly what the extremists want. They want to be legitimized by an association with religion. We would be playing into their narrative. Second and by the way, i think this was pointed out in a piece the other day. There are 1. 6 billion muslims. There are 20,000 or 30,000 adherents to isil. We would be allowing 0. 0019 of particular group to define the entire group . That makes no sense. And beyond that, it has the potential to alienate the people that you need on the front lines combatting this problem. And that is exactly what we heard from most, if not all and the ministers and other delegates in the town last week. Maybe you can grab davids mic or somebody. Greg, youre coming next. You can keep the mic on. Thanks, tony. Last week, the uns special envoy for syria, he said in a private reefing, iran has been private briefing, that it ran has been supporting syrias regime to the tune of 35 billion annually. Which is an astonishing figure. It is 10 of irans gdp. Im wondering if you can comment on that and if you can comment if you can comment about has there been any evolution in irans regional policies since the election . Were seeing a willingness to engage United States on a nuclear issue, but over the last year and a half, heavy seen any difference in regional policies . Thank you. Thanks. Second question first. I havent seen any difference. If anything, ive seen iran trying to take advantage of different openings, for example in yemen. And weve seen a continuation of destabilizing activities support for terrorist groups. I think theres been you could make the case that for reasons of their own, theyve done some positive things in iraq, not in any cooperation with us because it advanced their interest. But thats their own agenda. The people who are responsible what were doing is entirely segregated from Everything Else on the nuclear file. It has been walled off. And the people who are responsible for trying to pursue the agreement on behalf of iran are not the same people who are really in charge of their policy in other areas. So there seems to be a little bit of a dichotomy between the way theyre approaching the nuclear issue, which has been, you know, i would say largely pragmatic which doesnt mean we , will get to an agreement versus their activity in other areas which have been arguably accelerated. Second, with regard to the support of syria, i cant vouch for the number that stefan said, but theres no doubt a significant amount of resources. And these are resources that arguably, cant afford. Which, hopefully, may be one incentive for iran to think about putting its weight and influence behind some kind of negotiated political transition. The same goes for russia. There are also expanding significant resources to support alassad. Resources they also dont really have the luxury of spending in that way. One would hope that they will think twice Going Forward that it might be to their benefit to not have to make the same type of expenditures and help move in the direction of a political transition that allows syria to remain intact, its institutions in tact. But takes the magnet for extremism, which is bad for russia and bad for iran in terms of isil, away. And thats assad. Mr. Secretary my question is , about linkage and to what extent you and your colleagues have been thinking about that. You spoke today very eloquently and many leaders of the administration have spoken also about the impact of our sanctions and european sanctions on russia and what kind of an adverse effect they have had. To what extent on a measurement from zero to 10 is there concern at the administration there may be linkage that results from that . To what extent are we relying upon russian cooperation for successful result with iran . Its a really interesting question and one that weve been looking at. Heres what i can tell you in terms of practical observation. What has been interesting, because i think it is a matter of self interest, when it comes to the iran nuclear negotiations, the russians have been a constructive partner and they have remained a constructive partner. They have tried to advance constructive ideas in the course of these negotiations. So the profound difference that we have with them over ukraine has not bled into the iran nuclear negotiations. I would say similarly, although it is less acute because not as much is happening on north korea, that is not been especially problematic, either. I think what one can take from that is, in part, that where russia concludes that a particular issue and cooperation in the context of that issue advances its own interest, its going to keep doing it irrespective of whats going on with ukraine or anything else. At least, thats been the case to date. I think one of the many frustrations about the actions that russia chose to take in ukraine is that we have built, over some years, better cooperation with russia on a number of fronts that were obviously beneficial to our own security and interest. And presumably, beneficial to theirs. Whether it was new start whether it was iran, whether it was afghanistan where russia has been important in allowing us to move people and material in and out. But that is no longer where we are in the relationship. The bottom line is, where it self interest is clearly at stake and cooperation advances that selfinterest continues. Thank you. So how do you assess putins intentions towards the three Baltic States . Is nato absolutely committed to defending them . And does nato have the military capability to do so whether it would be a conventional kind of aggression or, as weve seen them do in crimea and in the eastern provinces of ukraine this sort of new, surreptitious advances of ukraine . The answer is yes. Period. With regard to the third part of the question, do we have the means to defend . Again, the answer is yes. And one of the things that weve been working on since this crisis erupted was to take very concrete steps, not only to reassure our partners and allies, but also to enhance the capacity to deal with these kinds of challenges. Im confident that if it came to that thank you. The answer is yes. The first part of the question is a lot harder. And i dont know its hard to read intentions. I think one thing i take from whats happening in ukraine, to some extent, there is been a lot of improvising by russia to deal with a fastchanging situation that seem to be spinning out of control. But i think, unfortunately, from the improvising, as i try to make the case earlier, has asked actually put it in a place where it is going to be a real strategic loss for them. But i cant put myself in that mindset. I do think that it would be a very serious mistake for anyone to doubt our commitment to and the commitment of other allies, to our nato commitments. But what would that kind of defensive action look like if they used, say in latvia, the kind of mo they used in crimea . Im not going to speculate on what might happen in the future or hypothetical situations. I can say that theyre looking very hard on acting on how they can better position themselves should Something Like that happen. But it is hard to really speculate about Something Like that. Professor . Thank you and thank you for this very conference of statement today. I would like to ask a semiacademic question back on ukraine, the perennial gap my question has to do with the perennial gap between words and deeds in our foreign policies. Specifically, on ukraine. It appears to me that when we talk about independence and sovereignty, when we talk about i think you mentioned, maybe not that were the sanctity of its borders some are we not promising more than what our allies in the Atlantic Alliance are prepared to deliver . Charles, to date, at least, one of the great strengths, if not the greatest strength, the approach that weve taken in the ukraine, is that weve sustained a solidarity among our parter and allies. And weve managed to do virtually everything jointly and in lock step. And theres been criticism along the way that we should have gone further and faster, for example, verys points on sanctions, and various points on sanctions, and the president s believe very strongly that were actually much more effective if we can sustain that kind of joint action in solidarity, particularly, when it comes to exerting pressure. And, so, what weve seen, at least up until now, is rather extraordinary unity with the major European Partners on ukraine. It is not easy, as you know better than anyone. There are tremendous pressures that governments are under to take Different Directions on this. But thanks in no small measure am at least in my judgment first and foremost, to the president s leadership because i witnessed this firsthand. And it is stuff that doesnt get seen on a daily basis. But the constant calls and meetings led by him throughout have made a huge difference in keeping people on the same page. And of course, folks working for the president or the secretary engaging on this that has made a huge difference. But weve also seen extraordinary leadership from our partners, starting with angela merkel. And pray minister cameron, Prime Minister cameron president hollande and others. , so we put a premium on tried to sustain that cooperation and coronation and nudity, again, unity again because thats , how were more affected. And, again, conversely, if we allowed putin to divide us, that would be a strategic success for him that we dont want and and can ill afford. But this is, as weve started out at the beginning saying, this is a very challenging situation. You have a country that is right there on ukraines border with significant resources in terms of its military and proxies that it is supplying a supporting, promoting. And the idea that this can be reversed militarily, i think, is probably unlikely, which is why on a more asymmetric response, primarily through exerting exerting pressure, i believe, over time, it is going to produce results that we looking for. But to do that, we need to keep the unity that we have with the europeans. Thank you. Tony, a slightly more personal question, if i may you spent six years working in a white house and in an nsc that gained a reputation for being extremely covetous of the most sensitive you know, Foreign Policy files was accused from timetotime of micromanaging and there was clear frustration in the agencies with you know, on the , part of many people who felt that they just didnt have enough leeway. Youve now gone to one of those agencies. So im wondering what life is like at the other end of the telescope . So, on my second day at the state department, we had a large staff meeting. And i said that i had come to one conclusion after 48 hours at state, is that micromanagement from the white house has to stop. [laughter] look, my own experience, mark, and different people see this different ways, having worked in the Clinton Administration and having at least been a witness to the Bush Administration from congress, my sense is that this is the same story with different degrees, maybe, in virtually every administration. There are inhernt institutional challenges that are built into the system between the white house and the state department or the pentagon and, you know, you pick your agency. And sometimes its a function of, in terms of how far up the dial youre going, the individuals, maybe its a function of the issues at play but it seems to be this is something thats just thats just baked in and built in. I like to think that when iflgs when i was still at the white house working on the interagency process, as the Deputy National security adviser, that in fact we ran a very inclusive process where all of the agencies and departments were at the table, had their say and indeed, drug policy in most areas. That was the wait was supposed to work. And that is the way, at least in my small part, i try to make it work. So again, i think some of the frustrations and concerns they that get express, just seem to be the natural product of the institutional relationship that exists in any administration. Ive been given the signal that theres only one more question. And two people have been on the list for a while. So, im going to ask both of you to ask the question together secretary blinken can use it as a springboard for his closing statement. Im just wondering, we had a minsk agreement the other day. That fell off almost immediately. I dont think it was never not under fire. Did you know that is what was going to happen . Is that what you expected . Are there any red lines in ukraine as far as the administration is concerned . Doyle, whiteout you ask one why dont you ask one as well . I hope youll take this as a welcome imitation to go back to restart of the session, tony knows your vigorous rebuttal of critics who worry the administration isnt doing an f leadership. Some of that criticism is partisan, but not all of it is. There are plenty of possible explanations for why that concern arises. You have a bad patch, still conditioned by the cold war, expect instant results. Take yourself to the 40,000 foot level and write us the history of this administrations transformation of american leadership. [laughter] first, davids question on ukraine. I think it is easier now. [laughter] look, it was a land grab. It was done after it was before the minsk agreement was signed. It was pretty far along. The ceasefire was supposed to take effect on sunday and it didnt. The separatists grabbed what they could, aided and abetted by russia. In my judgment, that needs to be accounted for Going Forward. I think its clear, also Going Forward, that the ceasefire needs to be fully implemented. The heavy weapons need to be pulled back. And i think you heard the secretary say i cant remember if it was today or yesterday, probably yesterday at this point, that absent those initial steps being taken, were going to have to deepen and extend the pressure on russia. And were talking very closely to our European Partners right now about next steps if these two very basic things, ceasefire, pullback of the heavy weapons, agreed to by russia, dont take place. That is what were looking for. And were looking for that in the coming days. If it doesnt happen, we will take account of that. On the 40,000 foot question, boy, that would take a while to try to answer with any kind of adequacy. I guess i would say this. You can look at the specifics of how the administration has handled different challenges, worked on different opportunities. You can look at the sort of big muscle movements of trying to bring to conclusion two large wars. You can look at the big muscle movements out of these trade agreements, which, were they to happen, tpp and ultimately teta, ttip, would cover about 75 of global gdp. You look at the big movement of Climate Change and whether we get a significant step forward in paris at the end of the year. But i guess, if i had to step back, i think what were try to do is to look at a few basically Guiding Principles that weve tried to put in place. We obviously are not perfect in adhering to them, no one is. One, were try to act with the sense of general purpose. It is probably the purpose that is extended from the beginning of the republic. And that is to look out for the security of our citizens, to try to advance Economic Prosperity to try to promote our values and maybe one added element, which is to try and strengthen some of the institutions of international order. So we have worked to do that. We have tried to act and lead from a position of strength. That started with china get our economic house in order. We have tried to get our economic house in order. I think were in a much better position than we have been. When i was in china last week, ive been a previously with Vice President biden in the depths of our economic crisis. That was a point i think jim will remember, when the chinese love to talk about, oh, maybe we should not keep our money in the United States it is so risky, to which the Vice President said goahead, take it out. They didnt because even in the depth of our crisis, it remained the best place, the safest place. The Vice President said than in and i remember it very well to the chinese leadership, it is never a good bet to bet against the United States. And i think at least right now where we are, he was right. So weve tried to leave from the the position of strength, with what will remain the strongest military, by far, in the world. Despite sequestration. That is not make things easier. But we have made the smart , investments in that. The third, weve tried, as a general principle, to actually live and lead from our values. Doing that at home to the extent possible, so you know, bringing health care to 30 million more americans. That resonates around the world and i have heard it from traveling around the world. From working hard on closing guantanamo to ending torture, other steps we have taken to demonstrate were serious about living our values. We have tried to lead from the proposition that doing so with partners is the smarter and more effective way to advance our interests around the world. We spent a lot of time working on building partner capacity working on cooperating with established partners, building the capacity of new ones. And that has very positive moments and then also frustrations. Its a longterm process. But were infinitely better off doing it with partners where we can. As a fifth principle, i would say, weve also tried to make the case that we needed to use all the elements of national power. And not overrely on one muscle. So the military element has remained critical. Our economic strength has remained critical. But weve also sought to energize our diplomacy, to advance development, to tackle some of these large, underlying issues. I think one of the hallmarks is going to be, and people debate and dispute this, but the president believes strongly that it doesnt really make a great deal of sense to bog down tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of americans in foreign lands for decades at a time when there may be other means of dealing with the security threats. So i think thats been something. Finally, i would say were trying to lead with a sense of perspective. Heres what i mean by that. The fact of the matter is, this is a period of extraordinary change around the world, with big faultlines that are moving. Some good, some bad, some indifferent. Its what you make of it. And we see all of those fault lines very acutely in the middle east. Where you have changing relationships among states and within states between the old order and new aspirants, empowered individuals. Conflicts that may be ethnic or religious in nature. New technology that is bring people together, but also creating greater vulnerabilities. And i think whats important is, at least for me, that i take away from this, is a lot of this is not about us. And we have to have some humility in thinking that we are the cause of every problem, or the solution. Because so much of this has nothing to do with us. But the problem is, it affects us. If we dont deal with it, to the best of our ability, it will bite us even harder. Beyond that, even if it is not about us and even if we can fix cannot fix everything, more than any other country honor, we have an ability at least on the margins to shape change to mitigate some of challenges and downsized hopefully, to maximize some of its opportunities. So that is the perspective weve brought to bare. That is for a much how the president and the secretary would see them. You can run down the checklist of where it has worked, where it hasnt worked, where it is still a work in progress. At the main thing of it with is what i started with. The notion that the United States is somehow not leading, that were not more engaged in more places than ever before is a simple thought thought experiment. Take us out of the picture. What does it look like . It looks a lot worse. I want to pay my respects to a scholar a friend of the institute for years. Thank you so much. [applause] next, a strut, tony abbott, outlines out t antiterrorism proposals in light of a recent incident in his country. Then, nsa director mike rogers. Then, some speakers from the conservative Political Action conference being held here in washington. The cspan cities tour takes american tv American History tv and booktv on the road. We partnered with comcast to visit galveston, texas. With the opening of the suez canal, ships were built with the opening of the canal, ships had a shorter trip to india. Ships needed to find a way of opening that making their own living. They started carrying higher value cargo, or oil, coal cotton, etc. So, the ship found its niche carrying cargo that did not require getting to market at a fast pace. Galveston is really unique. She sailed and arrived here and galveston probably about 100 yards from where we are standing right now. In 1883 with a cargo full of bananas. She came, again a second time in 1886. It was important for Galveston Historical Foundation to find a connection. The fact that she had a sailing vessel was all the more important. If my watch all of our events from galveston. This week, australia Prime Minister tony abbott announced reforms. The speech came the day after released a joint report on the investigation into the event. The australian Justice Minister introduces the Prime Minister. This is about 30 minutes. I welcome you here to headquarters of the Australian Federal police from the important National Security statement from our Prime Minister. And i welcome the Prime Minister and ministers, particularly those sitting on the National Security cabinet, agency heads thank you for being here. We find ourselves in australia in a radically different security environment than when we came to office in International Events 2013. Particularly those in the middle east, have unleashed threats that have resulted in the terror alert in australia being assessed as being high for the first time. We can not allow a situation where our freedoms in australia and the generosity of the australian way are used against us. The government is required to respond to these new threats and to make sure that our agencies have the resources and the powers that they need to do so. Thats why weve committed 630 million for our counterterrorism package, as well as introducing to the Parliament Three trenches of legislation that strengthens the ability of our agencies such as the Australian Federal police to deal with these increased threats. Were also working very hard with vulnerable communities to counter violent ideologies and encourage social harmony. Our Law Enforcement and intelligence communities have for years since 9 11 been very effective about keeping australia and australians safe. But we need to constantly refine the way they operate and seek to make improvements when we can. As many in this room know today. The Prime Minister has been very focussed on this challenge and hes shown great leadership in these areas. His government takes National Security seriously. Whether its facing the threat of homegrown extremism or dealing with the mood of our citizens on mh17. The safety and security of the australian population is a top priority of this government and im very pleased to be able to welcome the Prime Minister to the Australian Federal Police Headquarters and to make this statement today. [applause] thanks. Well, michael, thank you so much. Its great to be here at the Australian Federal police, good to be in the companies of so many of my parliamentary colleagues and in the company of so many of the senior people who are responsible for our counterterrorism efforts. Today i want to speak to you about keeping our country safe. I want to speak to you about the threat that we face, the work done already to keep you as safe as we humanly can, and the things still needed to prevent further terrorist attacks. Today my colleagues and i are joined by representatives of the Australian Federal police, the Australian Defense force and agencies like crimtrack which helps police and other Law Enforcement bodies to share information. The men and women in this room are on the front line of australias fight against terrorism. There is no greater responsibility on me, on the government than keeping you safe. We know that these are testing times for everyone here and for everyone stworn protect democratic freedoms. The terrorist threat is rising at home and abroad and is becoming harder to combat. Weve seen on our tv screens and in our newspapers the evidence with a new dark age that has settled over syria and iraq. We have and seen the beheadings the mass executions, the crucifixes and the sexual slavery in the name of religion. There is no grievance here that can be addressed. Theres no cause here that can be satisfied. Its the demand to submit or die. Weve seen our fellow australian, people born and bred, we believed, to live and let live succumb to the lure of this death cult. Weve heard the exhortation of their socalled caliphate to kill all or any of the unbeliever s unbelievers and we know that this message of the most primitive savagery is being spread through most sophisticated modern technology. By any measure the threat to australia is worsening. The number of foreign fighters is up. The number of known sympathizers of extremism is up. The number of potential homegrown terrorists is rising. The number of serious investigations continues to increase. During 2014 the government consulted with our experts, many of whom are in this room today. We talked with our allies and we worked with the opposition to improve australias preparedness for any eventuality. Last september the National Terrorist threat level was lifted to high, which means that a terrorist attack is likely. Critics said we were exaggerating. But since then weve witnessed the frenzied attack on two Police Officers in melbourne and the horror of the Martin Police martin place siege. 20 people have been arrested and charged as a result of six Counterterrorism Operations conducted around australia. This thats onethird of all the terrorism related arrests since 2001 within the space of justice six months. So the judgment to lift the Terror Threat level was correct. In proclaiming this caliphate, the islamist death cult has declared war on the world. Not only has australia suffered at the hands of terrorists but so have canada, france, denmark, iraq, egypt, libya, nigeria, japan, jordan, the United Kingdom and the United States. And we have seen the tactics of terrorists evolve in the decade after 9 11 our agencies disrupted elaborate conspiracies to attack our electricity supplies, the grand final of the mcg and the Army Barracks in sydney. Now in addition to the larger more complex plots that tipified the post 9 11 world such as the atrocities in bali and london, sick individuals are acting on the caliphates instructions to seize people at random and kill them. Todays terrorism requires little more than a camera phone , a knife and a victim. These lone actor attacks are not new but they do pose a unique set of problems. All too often alienated and unhappy people brood quietly feeling persecuted and looking for meaning. They selfradicalize online. Then they plan attacks which require little preparation, training, or capability a short lead time from the moment they disside theyre going to strike decide they go to strike, and then undertake the attack makes it hard to disrupt their activities. Police do not have the luxury to watch and wait. They apply their best judgment and do so aware that the armchair critics will find fault. Still, police act because they have enough facts to make informed judgment ss some of these may not result in prosecutions but, frankly, id rather lose a case than lose a life. The protection of life must always rank ahead of the prospects in the successful prosecution. The arrest of two men in sydney earlier this month whod already recorded a preattack message is just one example of how quickly a threat can develop. And i should add without our foreign fighters legislation its highly unlikely that these arrests could have been made. This new terrorist environment is uniquely shaped by the way that extremist ideology cans now spread online. Every single day the islamist death cult and its supporters churn out up to 100,000 social media messages in a variety of languages, often they are slick and wellproduced. Thats the contagion thats infecting people and grooming them for terrorism. Already at least 110 australians have traveled overseas to join the death cult in iraq and syria. At least 20 of them so far are dead. Even if the flow of foreign fighters to syria and iraq stopped today, theres now an australian cohort of hardened jihadists who are intent on radicalizing and influencing others. The number of australians with hands on terrorist experience is now several times larger than it was with those who trained earlier in afghanistan and pakistan and of that group twothirds became involved in terrorist activity back here in australia. The signs are ominous. Azo currently has over 400 high priority counterterrorism investigations and thats more than double the number a year ago but we are not alone in facing such challenges. The same phenomenon is evident across europe, in the United States, and in southeast asia. Many of those involved in antiwestern attacks in indonesia over the last decade are now being released from prison. Some neither reformed nor rehabilitated. Australian and indonesian agencies will continue to work closely together to tackle extremist extremists because its in both our interests to do so. In australia and elsewhere this threat of terrorism has become a terrible fact of life that government must do all in its power to combat. So far, this is what weve done. Within weeks of taking office, i asked the attorney general to develop a government response to foreign fighters. Last august, the government invested 630 million in a range of new counterterrorism measures. This funding gives our security agencies the resources they asked for to combat homegrown terrorism and to help prevent australians participating in terrorism overseas. The effects of these new measures are already being felt. Counterterrorism teams now operate at all eight Major International airports. 62 additional biometric screening gates are being fast tracked for passengers at airports to detect and deal with people leaving unforced passports. 49 extra afp members are working in sydney, melbourne and canberra on the foreign fighter threat. Seven new financial analysts have been engaged to help crack down on terrorist financing. A new violent Jihadist Network mapping unit has been created to improve intelligence agencies understanding of the threat facing australia. A Foreign Fighters Task force has been established in the Australian Crime Commission with access to the commissions coercive powers. And last thursday the attorney general announced a series of measures designed to combat terrorist propaganda online. We have legislated to cancel the welfare payments of individuals assessed to be a threat to security. This is not window dressing. As of last september 55 of the 57 australians then fighting with terrorist groups in syria and iraq had been on welfare. We have made it easier to ban terrorist organizations which promote and encourage terrorist acts. We have strengthened the offenses of training with, recruiting for, and funding terrorist organizations. We have made it easier to prosecute foreign fighters by making it illegal to travel to a declared area overseas. Last december we prescribed travel to syrias al Raqqa Province where the death cult is based without a legitimate purpose. We are now looking at listing mosul in nineveh province in iraq which the death cult also controls and we have given asia the power to request an australian passport pending further security assessment and thats happened eight times so far. This year we will consider what further legislation is needed to combat terrorism and keep australians safe but we can not do it alone. The government is working with 202 7488000 local communities to combat violent extremism. I acknowledge the readiness of parents, siblings and Community Leaders to let the police know about people they think are falling under the death cults spell our agencies could not help without their help. By acknowledging, too, the cooperation that the commonwealth enjoys with all the states and territories on counterterrorism issues, that cooperation was highlighted by the martin place siege yesterday we released the martin place siege joint commonwealth New South Wales review. What we learned was that there were no major filings of intelligence or process in the leadup to martin place. Everyone did do their job required by law. But there is much more to do. Its clear that in too many instances the threshold for action was set to high and that the only beneficiary of that was the Martin Police murderer himself. For too long we have given those who might be a threat to our country the benefit of the doubt. The perpetrator was given the benefit of the doubt when he applied for a visa. He was given the benefit of the doubt for residency and citizen ship. He was given the benefit of the doubt at center link. He was given the benefit of the doubt when he applied for legal aid and in the courts theres been bail when there should have been jail. This report marks a line in the sand. There is always a tradeoff between the rights of an individual and the safety of our community. But we will never sacrifice our freedoms in order to defend them. But we will not let our enemies exploit our decency, either. If immigration and Border Protection faces a chase to led choice to let in or keep out people with security questions over them, we should choose to keep them out. If theres a choice between latitude for suspects or more powers to police and security agencies, more often we should choose to support our agencies. And if we can stop hate preachers from grooming gullible young people for terrorism, we should. We have already made a start on removing the benefit of the doubt for people who are taking advantage of us. Weve introduced legislation to refuse a protection visa to people who destroyed evidence of their identity and the same applies if you present a bonus bogus document. This bill, im afraid, is currently stalled in the senate. Its reasonable, its in our countrys best interests and i call on all senators to support it. The governments bill being reviewed by the parliament is the vital next step in giving our agency the tools to keep australia safe. Access to metadata is the Common Element to most successful counterterrorism investigations. Its essential in fighting most major crimes including the most abhorrent of all, crimes against children. Again, i call on the parliament to support this imimportant legislation. We need to give our agencies these powers to protect our community. Today i am releasing the count counterterrorism review that the government commissioned last august. This review finds that we face a new longterm era of heightened terrorism threat with a much more significant homegrown element. While the review did not recommend major structural changes, it did recommend strengthening our counterterrorism strategy and improving our cooperation with atrisk communities. The government will carefully consider the findings and act as quickly as possible but, in fact, some recommendations have already been acted upon. We will ensure that returning foreign fighters are prosecuted or closely monitored using strengthened control orders. We will appoint a National Counterterrorism coordinator. We want to bring the same drive focus, and results to our counterterrorism efforts thats worked so well in operation sovereign borders and operation bring them home. Now, over recent months ive spent many, many hours listening to australians from all walks of life. Clearly people are anxious about the National Security threats we face. And many are angry. Theyre very angry because all too often this threat comes from someone who has enjoyed the hospitality and the generosity of the australian people. When it comes to someone like the martin place murderer, people feel like we have been taken for mugs. Australian citizenship is an extraordinary privilege that should involve a solemn and life long commitment to australia. People who come to this country are free to live as they choose provided provided they dont steal that same freedom from others. We are one of the most diverse nations on earth and celebrating that is at the heart of what it means to be an australian. We are a country built on immigration and are much the richer for it. Always australia will continue to welcome people who want to make this country their home. We will help them and support them to settle in, but this is not a oneway street. Those who come here must be as open and as accepting of their adopted country as we are of them. Those who live here must be as tolerant of others as we are of them. No one should live in our country while denying our values or rejecting the very idea of a free and open society. Its worth recalling the citizenship pledge that all of us have been encouraged to recite. I pledge my commitment to australia and its people whose democratic believes i share, whose rights and liberties i respect, and whose laws i will uphold and of a obey. This has to mean something. Especially now that we face a homegrown threat from people who do reject our values today i am announcing that the government will look at new measures to strengthen immigration laws as well as new options for dealing with australian citizens who are involved in terrorism. We can not allow bad people to use our good nature against us. The government will develop amendments to the australian citizenship act so that we can revoke or suspend australian citizenship in the case of duel nationals. Since nationals. It has long been the case that people who fight against australia forfeit their citizenship. So australians who take up arms with terrorist groups, especially while Australian Military personnel are engaged in afghanistan and iraq have sided against our country and should be treated accordingly. For australian nationals we are examining suspending some of the privileges of citizenship for individuals involved in terrorism. These could include restricting the ability to leave or return to australia and access to Consular Services overseas as well as access to welfare payments. We will also clamp down on those organizations that incite religious or racial hatred. No one should make excuses for islamist fanatics in the middle east or their imitators here in australia. For too long, successive governments have been concerned about organizations that breed hatred and sometimes incite violence. These organizations and individuals blatantly spreading discord and division such as hizb uttahrir should not do so with impunity. Today i can confirm the government will be taking action against hate preachers. This includes enforcing our strengthened terrorism advocacy laws. It includes new programs to challenge terrorist propaganda and to provide alternative online material based on australian values. And it will include stronger prohibitions on vilifying, intimidating, or inciting hatred. These changes should empower Community Members to directly challenge terrorist propaganda. Now, ive often heard western leaders describe islam as a religion of peace. I wish more Muslim Leaders would say that more often and mean it. Ive often cited Prime Minister najib of malaysia who has described the islamist death cult as against god, against islam and against our common humanity. In january, president al sisi told the imams at Egypts Al Azhar university that islam needed a religious revolution to sweep away centuries of false thinking. Everybody, including muslim Community Leaders, needs to speak up clearly because no matter what the grievance, violence against innocents must shorely be a blasphemy against all religion. Now, i cant promise that terrorist atrocities wont ever again take place on australian soil. But let me give you this assurance. My government will never underestimate the Terror Threat. We will make the difficult decisions that must be taken to keep you and your family safe. We have the best National Security agencies and the best Police Forces in the world. Our agencies are working together, all levels of government are working together we are doing our duty. Thats why in coming years you will see a stronger and more secure australia. This is what you have a right to expect and and to demand of me. Thanks very much. [applause] on newsmakers, virginia congressman Bob Goodlatte talks about immigration, how republicans are challenging the president obamas executive orders to allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the u. S. Without being deported, how the immigration debate came to the funding of the department of homeland security, and the texas judges order. Newsmakers on cspan. This sunday on q a, Baltimore Police commissioner on the challenges of policing the city. It was clear to me that i still have an issue with public trust and people believing things that were said. Regardless of the fact that i stand in front, like i did today, and say that the use of force is down complains are down, lawsuits are down, officer involved shootings are down, and were moving in all the positive ways. People and communities say, we do not believe it. Sunday night on cspans q a. The Political Landscape has changed with a 114 congress. Not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house, and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there are also 108 women in congress, including the first africanamerican woman in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. He . The congress using the congressional conical on cspan. Org. It has a lot of useful information including voting results. New congress, best access on cspan, cspan2, c radio, and cspan. Org. On monday, attendees of a Cyber Security conference heard from nsa director mike rogers. He talked about leaks by Edward Snowden and oversight powers that can be used to keep the Intelligence Community and check in check. This event is about one hour. Thanks so much, everybody. Thank you. It is a privilege, privilege pleasure to grill you. In front of so may people. We have some news. I know you would like to talk about. The story on the front page of the New York Times about iran and iran finding out in advance or discovering, a u. S. Effort to attack a system, and responding with its own retaliation beginning in august 2 dozen 12, including attacks on u. S. Banks. My first question i want to ask is how much of an alarm that iran was able to discover this . I have not read what we are talking about. Im not in a position mamma it is an nsa document. Assuming it is true, and you have no knowledge of it, it is a document, written by your predecessor, saying that iran discovered a program by the u. S. Following a virus to infiltrate its computer networks. It, in part, in response to that effort iran carried out its own way of retaliatory attacks. Three waves of attacks beginning in august of 2012, including targeting the u. S. Banking system. So, does that sound accurate to you . Again, i do not want to, if i have not seen the document. If you want to have a broader discussion the actions that nations taken cyber, i certainly understand that. The United States, like many nations out there have capabilities and cyber. The key for us is that they are employed in very lawful, regulated manners. I think you saw the presence direction up. President ial policy which he laid out about one year ago in the conduct of intelligence. The framework that i want you to use, the principles i want you to be mindful of, and the legal basis that we will continue to use. Our remains. Let me approach it differently in more general terms. The point that the story raises, and we will separate ourselves from the specifics of the story, are dangers that number have mentioned, including yourselves, of making cyber more costly in order to determine them. The followup danger is that if youre making those more costly by making her own attacks, are you starting a vicious cycle of attack and retaliation . Do we see that with for instance a country like iran . That, of course, goes argument further. Escalation is not something in the domain of cyber. In a more judicial world, cyber is the same kind of thing. . Do you think you have have you addressed it sufficiently . This event . Are there others that give you concerned that this is leading down a dangerous path . We have seen the damage. Not just iran, but countries like china. The dangers that this is and the dangers of the followon cycle. Are you comfortable that we have a handle on how to deter americas adversaries from Cyber Attacks without creating a further problem . Admiral rogers we are not where we need to be. Where we want to be collectively. This is still the early stages of cyber