committee, and that money is actually paid by fifa money. so it is the other $11 billion that goes into the infrastructure and half of that is being paid by the federal government of russia. now, in russia it's a little bit different because you say, the other half comes from sponsors and other private citizens, from what i learned in sochi, many of those private companies that sponsor were actually government-backed there you get a little bit, unlike the united states, germany and others where you have true commercial entities, i find many of these private companies have some government support in the back. also what happens is, i again learned, correct me if i'm wrong here, is that many of those hotels were built in sochi and maybe this will happen for world cup, many of the hotels are built based on loans guaranteed by the federal government. so if they default on those loans, because those hotels aren't being filled up and they're not making revenue, who is really paying that? it is the federal government. so although it's a privately-funded hotel they're saying, it ultimately may end up as a federally-banked hotel or venue. so just kind of trying to understand, i can give you the figures that i, you know, have gathered but you know, hough is really -- how much is really private and federally supported and federally backed is really a different situation. besides these hard figures here, i also want to bring up there is a lot of intangible benefits that are rarely discussed and the russian citizens, i think there were 50,000 volunteers that participated in the sochi olympic games. part of my research is to interview spectators as well as volunteers. of all the volunteers that spoke to, these were like in bars and other random places so i do not think they were politically-motivated statements these volunteers were making, they said it was one of the best experiences of their life. what they did was brought young russians from across russia, not just in the sochi region and, they trained them and brought them in and so volunteering is a new, kind of activity that hasn't been introduced in the society before. and i think it was a great opportunity. it is hard to put a price tag on it. so like, the mastercard it is priceless. so i want everybody to consider those other intangibles. also the education they received. service quality, most people, from what i understand in russia, they haven't had their chance to really understand quality service in five-star hotels and going through an olympic experience or world cup they get a lot of training on service. also on media, on commercialism. so i think these are other intangibles. >> thank you, lisa. i want to now hand over the discussion to lori who will tell us about the political issues in the world cup. >> i want to talk about the political context in russia. i wanted to make two kind of central points. the first one is of course at the moment russia made bid hosting world cup and now it is very different russia politically both in its international positioning and domestic situation. the bid was made before the ukraine crisis but globally revival of tension and the west, between the laws on ngo, between the laws on gtbe issues, between the russian response to so it is different way for russia toings to itself. domestically also things have been changing a lot. the bid was before the big anti-putin protest in 2011 and 12. the political situation is also different. interesting to see both domestically and internationally how the russian authorities will manage the preparation of the cup. what is really interesting, if we look at international aspect of that, that during the last 10 years, russia has been really successful promoting russian power. through the project, this will be the first time where russia is asked to display self-power after the ukrainian crisis. we will see how it works or how it doesn't work. that is also for russia. as lisa said that is territory where they will be going and probably at that time they couldn't even imagine the situation would be like that five years after the the bid. they will probably have to face, kind of -- the games, ukrainian situation is not resolved or if the situation even he deteriorates they will have to face the lgbt discussion that will be going on. think will have to also manage about street violence. this is something that usually in russia in many european countries. usually russian law enforcement agency is good at managing this kind of situation. but that can also kind of perceived aspect that will be given kind of but the way russia manages its kind of tension. in terms of soft power and negotiation abroad that will be that russia is in intense gilo political context. in the years to come how russia is able to manage this kind of incredible opportunity to promote itself abroad. as you know, all these kind of megaprojects, that is very putin project. important for putin's legitimacy both abroad and home. you have really a highly centralized dynamic going on for all the big megaprojects. it is centralized around putin and some of his close associates to be sure all the process is going well. the second part i wanted to make, dough meseraually russia change a lot also -- domestically. that will be a year of putin re-election. that will be political atmosphere in russia. even if you were regimes you can describe authoritarian, not being democratic, managing election has to be very important. it has to be successful. you can't ust display success or popularity of the leader. that will also be a moment where putin will also have to be sure all of the oligarchs are well around him and be sure that works and as you may know two kind of big oligarchs, are definitely involved in managing and financing some element of the world cup. so that is also a moment where maybe we'll see some tension or readjustment. so on, and all of these elements will make the preparation for the cup really important. as lisa said i think what really said is key critical for the russian authorities is to be sure they will not let the it develop a public knowledge of the cup being useless, crazy spending in a time of economy crisis. that is where things are becoming more difficult than the olympic sochi games. the crisis was not yet visible and differences infrastructure sochi. everything was centralized. it was a huge project for the region that is it is very highly centralized. it is more difficult to manage this kind of narrative about the public spending made for the world cup useless or useful for the population because we have the economic crisis now and the russian authorities themselves don't know how it will be next year and the year after if you just kind of slow down of the growth that is doable. if it is really kind of a structural economic crisis that will be difficult to manage the impact on the population. the second element make it more difficult to manage as lisa mentioned, it is not in one place. it is in several cities, which makes the centralized mechanism usually helps control the way money is spent will be more difficult to do because it will be decentralized in these many cities. it will be very important for the russian authorities to be sure you don't have huge scale down sports related or team issues or to be sure that there is not kind of, you know, big scandal of corruption in some of the cities that are receiving the cup or that you don't have kind of big discrepancies in one city because it is clear all the selected cities will get new stadium but they will compromise a lot more. there are airports, railways, not all of them will get the world package. so you will have to manage local discontent. all these elements make political aspects of preparation of the cup very sensitive. so just to conclude i think what is really important is that russia managing its power image and improving image abroad, avoiding unpopular support and avoiding scandal of economic crisis and being sure russia is able to avoid showing publicly economic deficiencies or administrative dysfunctionalities. that would great negative publicity. that is really too important for russia and for putin himself to lose this kind of game of credibility and visibility. i would just stop here and maybe let you -- >> go on with lori, remark of some of social issues for the world cup. >> yeah. pleasure to be here. thank you. i definitely am not a expert on russia at all. i don't know if i have much to say but i do know within the athletic environment you can often feel as if you're in a bubble whether leading up to competition or if you're in the competition, whether olympics or world cup so to speak. so, but for me, in my position as athlete it was always important to maintain awareness of what was going on outside of the athletic environment. so hopefully today, as we get into some of the questions and stuff i will give insight what it is like for an athlete socially. whether it is racism or more specifically to me, the lgbtq issues. while participating in a world event like the world cup. so thank you. >> great. well, we're going to continue then with the moderator question and answer session. i'm actually going to start with you, lisa. and my first question to you, what can you tell us about the negotiation process as regards, regards agreement on infrastructure, tours, travels, regimes, et cetera? just your past experiences. >> i mean as i mentioned before you know, it was up to, they had a minimum, eight stadiums. you know, 30,000 is the minimum number of seats in a stadium. so, with those minimums, it was up to the local organizing committee, the loc, to berm how many stadiums they actually wanted to build and how big they were. so not much negotiations there. they set minimums and russia decided to go a little bit above those minimums. in terms of the requirements, certain number of hotel rooms that the organizing committee has to secure for a minimum amount of money. and all of those, most were already secured before they bid. they had promised, okay, these hotels are going to be for fifa and this is the price that they're going to be at. and there is escalation clause over the years. so all of these kind of points are already very well-laid out in the host contract. there is not so much negotiation. in terms of the spectators, fifa says, well we'd like x number of hotels but they don't really care about spectators. this is really a tv-made event. there's a, billion, i forget the numbers, how many, 10 billion people i think watch the world cup and only 200,000 show up to it? so, really, spectators, good luck. that is what really got me involved with doing research on spectators. why do they come? how long do they stay? where are they staying? how much are they spending? i have some students in the room here who have actually gone with me on some of my trips and been out there collecting data on these spectators. you know, whether it is home stays or in hostels, most of spectators that aren't on corporate packages kind of go on the backpack style. they're just trying to find a place because they're true fans and they will stay wherever they can. >> just to follow up on that real quick, just to follow up on this real quick, because of the ruble crisis russia decided to downsize two of the stadiums. how does this work? why does people not just suggest cutting stadiums all together? because they are already four over the requirement? what kind of negotiation process goes on when this kind of stuff happens? >> i can tell you in brazil fifa continually told brazil, you don't need to be in 12 stadiums. you really need to be in eight. that this country is too large. i'm sure they said the same thing to russia. but, you, it is their money. they're spending it. so it is kind of like, i'm going to refer back to athletes are broke after playing. their agents tell them, put money aside. don't spend the money. but in the end it is the country's own money, if they're willing to spend it they're going to spend it. >> that is interesting comparison with serving alcohol to someone who is alcoholic, right? >> they're using it as a showcase and they're using it for political reasons putin may want this region to be happy to voight for him. >> if i may join on that discussion, fifa is not the one deciding what is the domestic discussion, negotiation going on between the regional elite and central elites. we don't know, we could look how each selected city is negotiating with putin. who are the oligarchs although who are the local politicians trying to manage relationships. that is why you have more cities what would be the minimum because it is politically so important for creating unity between the different regions that things are becoming political and not financial. >> right. and you know, but, right, you can downsize. that city got 40,000 or 50,000. why don't i get 50,000. but now, manaus, why did manaus get it? that is large area up in northern brazil that president wanted to satisfy or somebody wanted to satisfy. but one thing that i wanted to talk about in terms of centralization, in sochi it was most unique situation where the organizing committee was located in moscow. not until the very last year, really nine months, did most of the people move down to sochi. now, from an economic perspective, i thought that was really strange. i had gone over to sochi and all the local people kept saying, oh, all the local decisions are made up in moscow. this is your event. but in fact it really wasn't their event. it was all run through headquarters. you talk about centralization, obviously because there is a headquarters for world cup and usually held in the biggest cities. like for brazil, it was always in rio, the headquarters for the brazil 2014. i just thought it was very strange for sochi where the headquarters in moscow until the very last year. >> i'm actually going to take this as a cue for marlene, marlene, one of the questions, world cup is host of moscow. that is the center of it all, but what kind of effect do you think has a tournament like that represent a nation? how does russia speak through the tournament, a megaevent, huge event? what do you think does an event like this mean in a soviet country like russia? >> globally that means a lot for every kind of country receiving this tanks. we need to be careful not what is happening in russia is so specific. all these issues are happening in these countries. what seems important for the country. it is not the kind of post-soviet context. the fact of marginalization, current marginalization on russia internationally is very much visible on the way the russian media are speaking to their own population. so i was in russia last month and you could really feel how people feel very much misunderstood and so on. you can see already that the political authorities will try to gin up consensus and get it up for their own population to make the cup that as with sochi the legitimacy of russia to be a great power and to be recognized. so i think there will be relatively high level of popular support. and if you look at the political stuff done after sochi, there is general point of view for general population that sochi games were positive for russian image abroad but also for economic dynamism in russia, not really demonstrated for the region but really media, mainstream media are pushing for telling the population that everything is big economic success you can feel already in the survey we have that the population hopes a lot that thinks we have change by 2008 and that russia will be really kind of recognizing internationally. and that is, the kind of financial benefits for each city receiving the cup will be very visible. you have big popular pressure in each of the selected cities that really tried to, you can really see how people are hoping it will help improving the well-being of the population, the big issue being of course, future of the economic crisis and how it could impact russia strategy globally in this kind of showcase study. >> i was wondering to direct the next question to you, lori. what is it like to be in an event like the world cup? we had a couple of points hire with the infrastructure et cetera, but what does it mean? you played in germany. what does it mean for the athlete coming to a country like russia, playing there in the new facilities? how do you think that affects the football infrastructure on the ground? what is it like actually playing there. >> i think anytime, thank you. anytime you're in international competition it really helps or can offer the opportunity to bridge cultural differences which aid in more awareness and appreciation of diversity. i think it really depends on the athletes. i've had, in germany we didn't have very many issues. i mean it was spectacular event. then canada just put on a wonderful world cup for the women but, so specifically for russia in 2018, i know i had teammates play over there, go over there and played. i never played. i played a bit in germany in their leagues. they have a professional league but there wasn't the infrastructure for, to really play the players. so there was some corruption in that regard as well. but, in social aspect i think, it will be just interesting to see, you know one point i like to bring up prior to the sochi olympic, the organization i'm involved in is with athlete ally, prior to ahead of those olympics, 100 professional olympic athletes came together to basically bring up the draconian anti-gay law they had in place. and put pressure on the ioc to force them to modify their olympic charter, principle 6 in the olympic charter and that did take place. i guess my point is though, there is a way to inspire athletes to not just within their sporting event they're participating in but to inspire change and bring these cultural differences outside of the sports. i think you see that again prior to the sochi olympics and but, that is also within a lot of us are the u.s. athletes. you know, i think within the world cup that just took place in canada, you saw nigeria athletes can't speak out whether lgbtq issues or even the russians in fear of persecution. i think you, like with my friends who played in the, went over to play in the league in russia, they can bring those lessons learned that they experienced over there and back and how we can implement rand help change going into the 2018 world cup to some extent. >> yeah. marlene, actually, i was wondering if you can comment on some of these things. i want to know if you can comment on some of these things, especially, what kind of impact do you think athletes from all over the world coming to russia, what kind of impact will that have on russians itself but also on the image of russia in general? >> well, two things. on the anti-gay legislation in russia and lgbt issues that the preparation of the cup and the cup fully reopened the discussion in russia. but even if you can consider that you have big kind of media pressure coming from the political authorities on this issue, look at the results of it. you're in a society where these issues are very difficult to be discussed. i think we shouldn't help everything would change kind of faster in russia around this issue. really consider, you can really see politically the support of the population for all these anti-gay, lgbt legislation but i think what is very important but all the kind of advocacy groups trying to at least have an open discussion on this issue, then the minority really need this praise from athletes, kind of international visibility to try to reopen the discussion and make it a larger, but that is very sensitive issue really played out by the authorities in the west, decadent west, with its decadent values. that is something visible in two or three years when we will be close to the date of the cup. then globally another important issue that is on that way, i think the results of the cup could be more positive with highly developed xenophobia we have in russia against colored people, minorities whatsoever. i think on that really, showing on tv kind of international group playing together and so on around sports, that i think is kind of good message that we probably impacts more especially the young generation of russians who for now very seen phobe big because they -- xenophobic and they have no narrative or don't know how to learn to discuss these cultural differences. on that i'm more optimistic on the reason the cup will have than general discussion about gay and lbgt issues that are very difficult to have now. >> i will intersect with that real quick. i'm working close with an organization called fair, football against racism and xenophobia in russian football. the what struck me the fact the dialogue finally started. all i repeatedly pointed out to journalists in russia, who saw it as blame game from the west, why the west is targeting us because we have a racism issue. i remember saying to them, look, everyone who host as megaevent will be targeted for something. that not just a game. that is part of it. so for you guys to address issues such as racism, xenophobia or even gender equality issues, do it now. about you do it now, you have three years which of course is not enough to fix the problems but if you do it now and you show sort of good faith of addressing it, i think you will be in much better situation than if you just let it go and try to ignore it. very similar to what ukraine did, where it really blew up in the last minute with euro 2012. i think what you say is very interesting. yes, the dialogue has very much started. i think we're still a long ways off actually resolving a lot of issues. >> all other points i wanted to make in terms of spreading the world cup across the country, it does force people to go to other cities in russia, other than moscow and st. petersburg. volgograd, there are places that, most americans and europeans wouldn't even know existed and so, similar to similar to brazil, everybody goes to maybe rio and sao paulo but they push people out to other places. and the citizens in the locations meet foreigners as well. even in torino in italy, i was surprised how many locals said this is great, we have never met so many international people. that was italy. think what this will do to russia. then one other thing i heard over and over how german football improved over hosting the 2006 world cup. how that will impact russia now that they do have infrastructure. they receive money, about 100 million or more from fifa. i'm not saying that will go far, because of corruption, et cetera, what does this do to football? you would be better able to answer that? >> i said in opening remarks, the italian coach who made millions and millions of dollars was fired by the russian football union. he was more to blame for having very poor results. but to be very fair, he wasn't given much to work with to begin with because the infrastructure, that he was given, not, clubs themselves have fantastic infrastructure, training grounds, everything they're top-notch. they match up to what german and english cups have but he wasn't given that kind of infrastructure. on top of that he wasn't given the playing materials that players in russia had sort of missed that playing development step. now there is there is a bright spot. u-17 two years ago won the euro, which is a big deal and they just, actually u-19 finished second at this year's euros. very questionable if these players will be ready in time for the world cup but i think what you're saying with regards to germany, germany kick-started that their project to play a successful world cup 2026. they were wanted to win which they failed to do. i think you're right. absolutely a tournament like that can go a long way to reignite football in traditional football country especially. actually, lori, if you want to maybe comment on that as well. just in general what kind of impact a world cup can have on players, playing in that country. experience of 1999 in usa, right? as canadian i wonder what it would be like for canada in the upcoming years. >> great example of the '99 world cup. let me get the mic. just how ilectryfying that can be, ignite a country and get them excited about the sport and encourage and propel other youth athletes to get involved in that sport as well. think '99, even though we had a little bit of a lull, a few years afterwards, it was exciting time because we had a little bit of a lull between our professional leagues in the early 2,000s, to the end of the late 2000s. but i think exactly what happened in germany happened here in the u.s. and it propelled, excited players likes myself who were coming up the ranks to get involved in and play more often. you see that group win the world cup. and we hadn't won the world cup since '99. so just much like germany, it can get people excited. then it also empowers, specifically with the females, to speak out about issues and so, in this world cup which is exciting not only did we win, but you saw quite a few more athletes that spoke out, came out publicly, arguably in my opinion had some of their best world cups. i think that inspires and creates a freer level of play. and to play at a level that or you're playing in an environment where you're free and you're being your true self. i think you saw that in, that aids in being like a wonderful role model for upcoming young female athletes as well. >> you speak about role models and one image that stood out for me was abby woman wombach, hugging her partner after they won the world cup in van cue very. we have the robbie rogers openly gay could be at world cup. do you think in three years time, a male gay athlete playing at world cup, even have that abby wambach event where black players raised their wrist and speak out on equality? do you think we have that in russia or still too far away in terms of gender equality in man's game? >> it is tough nor me to say. it is exciting for abby woman back hugging and kisses her partner or rupino having one of the best tournaments in her career and coming out being true to herself. unfortunate thing is, that that we still have aways to go as i mentioned earlier nigeria and russia fear of persecution if they come out to speak about being gay or, so i think we still, unfortunately have a way to go. i'm only speak about my experiences with the u.s. national team and it really is a platform, aided with athlete ally which bunch of athletes on the u.s. team are involved with, that encourages us to have a platform to speak about advocacy and speak about equality. but you don't he see that in a lot of other countries. eastern though that is exciting on one end it is still quite unfortunate on another. so i think hard to say. i would say i think it is a little bit too soon but, you know. >> there is a move both within the olympic movement and fifa to better educate the football sags sags -- associations and national associations on good governance and fair play and equality in situations like this and it will take time. just look at our country. we still aren't racist-free. we're, we have our challenges too. and i think, you know, we're all growing. we're all trying to improve and it's not going to happen overnight because you're bringing the world cup here. i think that's what a lot of people think, oh, well, the world cup's coming. everything has to be wonderful now. and it just doesn't happen but i think it can move the needle and that's what we're trying to use sports for and that's if we work hard enough and use the media and players we can move the needle a little bit, but it is not goings to move you forward 50 years and they move you forward 10 years. >> right. specifically for this woman's world cup i think could be a good platform for that, as you say, move the needle a little bit and hopefully along to the mens side. >> this goes back to the 1936 olympic games. jesse owens and hitler. there is just example after example of how sport, how to influence on society. >> well you mentioned the influence on society but then there is the other side of the aspect that i'm going to ask this question to marlene. how do you think, how important is the world cup as a soft power for a country like russia and when you take the example of the sochi olympics where it was very much a display, they were often called putin's games, how do you think this will play out in the world cup in 2018 especially with, in regards to the election was just held three months before the tournament actually kicks off? >> yes. so that is the kind of hard balance game. it will be a kind of difficult balance game for russia because they will be in the media spotlight for their own presidential election a few months before. they will have to manage the soft power diplomacy. as i said in my small introduction that will be the first major soft power event of that side after the ukrainian crisis. so that will be if that soft power can work very well as it works for all the other soft power tools that russia displayed this last decade or it will not be so successful. seems to me what is very important on that, it will be the last, oh, at least, i mean, putin will be in his fourth mandate. officially the last one, so that something where, at least if hopes to stay until the last day of the last monday, it will be something of very symbolic importance for him being a kind of way of showing that he managed almost 20 years of political presence in russia. but what seems to me very important in demonstrating soft power because it's, the olympic games are about all the sports. this is the soccer cup. soccer is link so much to europe because it is so much linked to european sport and you so much want to play the country, it make as kind of symbolism of world cup even more visible because you really have to interact with countries that russia consider as its equal or once you want to partner with which has, u.s. and europe countries. that will be kind of a very high level focus for russia and for the population to be sure they receive all the big, famous team and that is narrative the reconciliation like western countries with sport going well. that will be kind of an interesting moment how the state narrative that is now so anti-western will suddenly have to also display a very positive narrative about some element of the western culture. i would think that russia is part of that western or european culture. so they will have to make a shift, that kind of a shift before the cup arrive. >> if you want to add to that. >> it is interesting to me most hosts of major events want to bring visitors in. and i'm a little confused on the russian visa process. u.s. media put in everybody. hurd dells that is you have to get through sochi. i was brought over to sochi. about nine months in advance. and, i was supposedly doing a sports tourism session. and i said, well where is the tourism people here? and because, one of my specializations is how to leverage the major events to increase tourism and economic impact in the future. they're like, oh, we don't have any tourism development here. i said, well this is your chance to do that. so, there is a missed opportunity if russia and government, i mean, maybe this could be their platform, talking about building tourism infrastructure, doing a plan, building their image, than more people would go to russia and, as a tourist destination. but again i'm not sure they really want that to happen. so, you know, oxymoron here. >> i believe that russia will actually get rid of the visa process for world cup ticketholders. that will already make it a lot easier. if you get any indication from brazil, i believe 40,000 americans traveled to brazil for the world cup and brazil had a lengthy visa process for americans as well. so that gives us a little bit of an idea i think where we're going to go with this. if you maybe want to comment on that. >> brazil waived visa fee for americans if they showed they had an actual ticket. i have not heard that for russia. it would be great if they waive the visa but -- but even if we still have on top of the visa, we had to get a tourist, olympic spectator card in sochi as well. so there was two things we had to go through. >> do you think though, it would be best interests of country like russia, to bring in tourist, hey, we're an open society, we want people to come? isn't that in the best interests of a host country in general? >> that is what they should be doing. everybody says greece, olympics in greece, were fault of their dismal economy right now. i don't think it was. it was poor planning. got call six weeks ahead of time. you're late. russia needs to start planning now to make people feel welcome. if you go to fifa website, they have each city listed and description of each of the cities. it is kind of old. of. you have to spice it up a bit. they are not used to tourism marketing and think they need some help there. >> just my last point maybe, i think, i hope for russia that next big event in football is the euro 2016 in france and of course the olympics that will take place in rio next year. so i think traditionally the world cup kicks off after that passed, right? one year to the federation cup. two years to the world cup. i think that will be sort of the deadline, wouldn't it, for a country like russia to get ready and say, this is what we're doing, this is all planned, this is where you can go, this is where you can stay? >> no, they should start now. because, you know, now you start working with the sponsors, looking forward. so after the last olympics or after the last world cup everybody starts looking at next one and doing other plans and, and now is when they need to start. so you have it all planned. you kick it off. during the euro but if you don't, if you doesn't start planning until euro, you're not going to be ready in '18. planning takes a while. >> okay. so, thank you. one last question. this is for everyone in mind, maybe we start with marlene on the right, do you think it is worth hosting the world cup? >> yes. >> why? not letting you off the hook that easy. >> i think it is very important for country like russia to get this kind of recognition. and that is an important tool we've been discussing how russia soft power will be playing around the cup. but that is also our own soft power toward russia, we can use in that occasion. i think it is a nice way where we can try to celebrate what we share together with russia and try to put everyone kind of back at the, at least at the table of the discussion and so on. so i think it is wonderful opportunity on both sides. russia will use it on its own side but we can also put leverage on that. we also have to disassociate the russia authority from the population. the population will be very much interested in kind of sharing more, receiving international guests and sharing more stories about their own experience with the western world. so i think everything makes sense. >> lori. >> great. i think it is just provides an open dialogue for some of these social issues i was talking about, whether it is racism or gender equality issues. so any time you can bring some of these issues to light, i think it is always, can be always positive, so. >> i think there a lot of misunderstanding in media about the money and how it's spent and all of that. like the boston situation. i mean i think bostonians lost a great opportunity to host a an event that would probably change their city but maybe a lot of people in boston don't want their city changed. they don't. they're very parochial. i'm just thinking that. but, in terms of russia, it is as we discussed before, it is an opportunity to open them up a little bit. the world cup has never gone that way, in that area. and think that's what fifa was saying. open up and get more people excited about football and give them some infrastructure. but overall i think there is a lot of tangibles and intangibles. leaders will make money off of it and do for their own reasons. but let's look at other reason like the volunteers around the youth. >> okay, just my final remarks. i think that russia has a fantastic opportunity with this world cup. this world cup in my opinion is long overdue as you mentioned. the world cup hasn't been there yet. it, russia is the oldest and biggest european country to have never hosted the world cup in the past. so there has been a lot of debate on the bidding process, et cetera. i want to take that aside and leave that off but we can say everybody that bid on that world cup probably has some dirt on their hands but i think that russia 2018 is huge opportunity, not just you know, putin will show it as his event, but because actually it will open up a dialogue as you said. i think that the at this point where we are u.s. and western relations with russia that is probably the best thing that can happen to us now. okay. thank you. >> so we'll do questions and answers now. before we do that i take opportunity to ask a question myself. talk about parochial, here in d.c. and virginia. we have a proud tradition of soccer, particularly women's soccer. i will ask lori, talk to us about our soccer scene here in the united states. getting a new station for united. talk about the success of women's league recently. look back at u.s. we have premier league on nbc and women's cup was very successful in terms of television. just talk to us about that if you could. >> yeah. it is extremely exciting time for women's soccer. i would argue women's sports in general. but we, i don't know if, how many people know we actually have a professional women's league and a team in d.c. well, slash germantown, maryland. i don't know why we call ourselves d.c. when it is hour away. that is beside the point. since the world cup, i think we have nine -- i don't think we have nine teams in the league and every stadium up until, i want to say last weekend was sold out for the most part after the world cup. so there is a exciting time for fans, the players. to speak out in regards to promoting the fame. promoting women's sports in general. so if you live close to germantown and d.c. check out the washington spirit. we do have one of the best stadiums in the league at the germantown soccerplex. exciting time to get behind women's soccer and promote gender equality in that regard too. anything else you want to speak about more? >> [inaudible] >> we're actually, we're in the last few games or last month of the season. it is pretty tight playoff race as all the world cup. we took a three-week break in the middle of the season for the world cup. now the world cup players, international players as well, are back playing with their teams. which has sparked excitement as well around the league. so, they're pretty, i would argue the most competitive league around the world, definitely athletically. it is the most competitive. so yeah, it is a wonderful product. family-friendly environment. should be a spokeswoman for the league. but, yes, definitely check out a game and spirit are doing well and we're in the playoff hunt. unless something goes terribly wrong they should make the playoffs so, yeah. >> would you point out questions? [inaudible] >> thank you. this question is for marlene. i fully appreciate, you know, the social soft power economic benefits of russia hosting the world cup. i'm of ukrainian descent. i have a completely perspective on this, a biased perspective, obviously, because i see analogy drawn between hitler hosting the '36 games. i see putin as being the 21st century hitler, getting more emboldened by showcasing again after sochi, showcasing again, i can't fathom -- i think there are two big elephants in the room here. one is that fifa is undergoing its own investigation here for corruption. and i questioned how this process occurred. why russia was awarded hosting the games, whether bribery was involved. and second elephant in the room is russia invaded ukraine and, by showcasing russia again, putin is just going to become more emboldened. he see this is as another coup in his hat. you know, he is a dangerous man. if you could comment on that please. thank you. >> thank you. of course. on the corruption issue, well, yeah that's is a huge elephant in the room but russia is not alone being elephant of the room. you have qatar and so i think it is general debate about the level of corruption globally in sports, and in fifa and, i mean of course being old country being help you being easily corrupting because money was easy, especially at that time, but for me it is general discussion which russia is just an element of it. i hope the investigation will go on and if they can demonstrate, if they have evidence that both russia and qatar really won because of corruption scheme, then i don't know what will be exactly the process but i think she develop on that issue. i think russia won among many participants globally in this corrupting scheme. on russia, ukraine relations that is something very specific. my only argument, and i understand you would be totally unsatisfied with it, is that it is not through the world cup that we will solve that issue. if we are a neighbor, we as the west, politically or literally, what else can we do? the west has been failing in securing ukraine's security globally since the beginning of crisis. so it is more about our own general inability to find a solution to secure ukraine's territorial integrity. it is small issue for us, it's a big issue for russia. i think on that we have been a little bit naive of the capacity of the west to resist on something where globally, given the current world context, for the u.s. and even for europe, it is not a major issue where for russia it is key issue. for russia the capacity to do whatever it wants almost in ukraine just because it is mr. putin and he has popular support. so i think that, i mean trying to block russia having cup because of ukrainian issue doesn't give us any political solution. it doesn't send any good message because we don't have the political or military or financial situation to help ukraine. i think in a sense it is not a cause of the problem. just that we don't have any kind of good solution and fifa cup is kind of last element that we try to forget on that and stopping russia on that, just way we are avoiding saying we don't really have long-term solution of the country. i understand that doesn't solve anything for the ukrainian people. if the situation didn't improve by that i don't know how the ukrainian team will be playing and so on. that will be a huge kind of i guess political issue. >> maybe -- >> [inaudible] unraveling of the post-cold war order, is what seems to be happening. the situation between the anti-west sentiment that exists in putin's russia, is a very real issue you know. it really is. and giving him the games again is another feather in his cap. just embolden is the man. >> yeah, first of all, he was given the games way before this issue actually came up. and to answer your question about corruption, it is likely we don't know, it is alleged corruption. the issue is though, everyone has dirt on its hands. only proven case of corruption was -- england 2018 where they have found cases of obvious payments being made. so i think it is very, most likely it was payments made was corruption involved? yes. probably. you know. that show these games were awarded. but as mike said in the very beginning the train sort of left because the tournament is set in stone. now, the same issue can be said about qatar. i'm not sure if this world cup is really another feather in putin's hat because i'm not actually sure if it is going to be as beneficial for him as i thises or as the west thinks, nor is it portrayed being like this glorious moment for him because it will open up the country and it will open up dialogue and it is going to show certain elements of russia not always welcome to people in power. i actually think that having the world cup there is going to do much more in terms of resolving the current problems than taking it away because, the moment west takes away, that is how it will be perceived in russia. it will be the west taking away world cup from russia. . . so i think whether the payments were made to not come that they remind out. the difference is qatar, a whole different story. [inaudible] >> i'm a professor at george washington university, former soccer player in coach. just a brief comment regarding how jeremy succeeded is really a trifecta. developing the youth and marketing that. it is a clear formula. it's a process of investment, development and marketing. fifa is planning to help russia beltway and i've been in touch with the medical director of fifa. they will be starting the so-called fifa 11 taking place throughout russia in the german model. of course it requires a russian commitment. fifa will catalyze the process in germany to do a russia. the question i have as you can imagine as a soccer player and physician and the health system is completely down. how would that quality be assured? >> i know what they did for sochi. and this is across 12 different cities. they bring in ge provided medical equipment. they built new clinics. they had helicopters. they brought in the expertise that they did not have it locally. >> i think you know in the russian system that is more complicated than just been collapsing. you have a public to many provincial city is in bad shape. you also have a private system where you have middle classes for a system and they have been issued. they have more of an issue with good people trained, skilled surgeons and so on and then not having enough equipment. i think they would do exactly what they did because that's the way when you cannot modernize the system you are creating parallel, a centralized system where they put a lot of money to make sure it works. they will open your clinic. they'll have the right equipment and that will cut a lot of money. that would be very well functioning. it doesn't mean over the system with during a lot of the population for the public sector, but they will manage that because they would have enough money and they would still be able with this element of the system. >> i assume they bring their own doctors. >> i know for the u.s. we have a couple of doctors that travel with us. i am pretty sure the majority of the team would travel with their own doctors. i can't say that for a fact, but the majority would. >> in so gnu we flew people to germany. whistler then madison is possible. i would be curious for those people study in russia is what happens about the equipment. i know ge and the other supplies left all the other quick and in sochi. i would like to see if it being used. just on a side note in london and east london, cheapening ahold micu unit on top of their olympic sponsorship and the results are that it may then i forgot how many thousand babies each year from the contribution. i am hoping the imaging equipment and everything left is doing some benefit to the people in the sochi region. >> ken meyer. let's suppose were scammed or worse in some countries boycotted the games. are there any rules in fifa that would cause them to penalize those countries? >> nope. and a team is a lot to don't want to participate. and the other countries will be happy to go. >> yeah, to be honest i note even ukraine says they are going. i vary hideout among some kabbalistic event happens between now and 20 out -- i think the u.s. will definitely be there. that is a very good point. first you need to qualify, which i think he will. i am sure the u.s. will be there appeared to >> we learned our lesson from 1980. it didn't solve anything. >> thank you. this is a question for men while and lori. i take the example of perhaps hosting the world cup in 1998 traditional football country but one in which football is not necessarily consumed at all or played in many french women and girls. that changed after hosting the world cup there were considerably more women in the stands and ranch football stadiums and that was what they call the world cup increase in girls who enrolled in youth football programs and while that didn't necessarily sustain itself until much more recent vintages the success of the women's side, it is definitely seen as a catalyst that coincided with a real dedication to growing the women's game in france. i'm curious to hear what insider thought he might have in terms of whether something similar might be the case of russia and female foot tall bear and whether it might be a catalyst to help in it i would give more wings and backing. >> i think in general brescia is far behind when it comes to gender equality in terms of women's football. they have a competition. they participate in the league. that said, in general, a world cup always sparks attention and always get people to play and i would say it will definitely increase and help the women's game just as much as it will help the men's game because people watch it on tv and people as i to be athletes they see on tv, especially young people, children. it will have a tremendous impact. >> real quick, the other thing is there has been a history of once a country has supposed dead demands, they host the women's beard i'm not saying i look at it for sure but it could be something down the line were a women's world cup -- [inaudible] >> yeah, just to piggyback, i think this world cup was an exciting time or other women national teams come as if it did nigeria because of social media as well we went from in 2011 we had 16 teams participate in the world cup and this year there's 24. so there's eight new teams participating and some which some would argue shouldn't have been there and the fact thailand last germany 10-0. in my opinion, and open up dialogue via social media and for some of the pressure on fifa to mandate that these countries put more money into the women's programs. if we have 24 teams they need to start spreading the money because the ivory coast participated in the men qualify for the knockout round. some are arguing they should have been at the world cup. hopefully this will spark a bomb in pushing and giving more developing to the women's side of the game. hopefully that would be the case with russia as well. >> anyone can there who feels like it. coming from georgia the country i've seen russia occupy georgia as saying russia occupying ukraine. i have seen russia.in-laws that day on homosexuality and racism flourishing in the country. like last week and it sounds a little bit naïve when asking about these games opening up russia. if you're saying so, let me give you this question. what was the benefit of the olympics and how did it change russia in sochi? >> we were discussing that right before the panel. he saw the media goes so favorable a the end of the sochi olympic games and those of us that attended really fell in love with russia and fortunately the week after, all of our opinions we had formed changed again back in even worse because of the invasion of ukraine. all the goodwill that they built up and fortunately i think went away and it was unfortunate for russia, but i think during the games they had an opportunity to change a lot of people's opinions than the overt, yet they chose to revert. many people said it was already in the planning that they knew they were going to do this after the games. i don't know about that. to your question we can only hope we have no scientific proof it is going to help any. but is it worth trying? is it better to close it off and say okay, we're not going to do what these people because they are going to just keep going. i don't know. >> i think they did. the people that i talked to, the citizens, the individual citizen that took part in the olympic games benefited. i can't say that hooton change. i don't think that is the case, but i think the citizens benefited. >> i can follow a map. in terms of russia, we all agree it's not the only one. look at the lgbt ride. we also need to -- a lot of countries getting the big spot, not the one we consider that the social or gender ratios. i also understand the political point. if we fell for georgia and ukraine, it is the political failure trying to solve the issue by looking at the kind of solutions of political failure and managing ukrainian crisis with russia. it is very important not to forget it's not all that giving power, it is also giving mass power because we have to engage with the international community. at that time they will have to allow more for a way for us to speak to the russian population beyond hooton. you will already see the russian population getting tired of the situation in ukraine. people have a lot of concern. the big effect of the crisis is media pressure kind of slowly diminishing people are worried they'll come for their economic situation, well-being. they have concern and you can find a lot of people in russia who say yes we wanted crimea to go back and we wanted the russian population in ukraine to be secure because that's the way they would end up. the price of this is higher than we imagine. we still have three years. things can change a lot in three years. any communication with the russian population you don't think diplomacy, you just need weapons and arms and i don't think it's the right solution. [inaudible] >> you don't see, for example, the 50,000 volunteers to participate. you don't know how that changes your life. you don't know if that helps them discussing and you also have long social transformation where you don't see the results right now. does that mean we shouldn't have them and not having that makes things easier? the discussion is open. the >> also to add to this, it's not that long ago. it's really hard to judge the impact at this very moment. yes we've seen a lot of the events play out, that these events were taking place during the olympics. 50,000 volunteers. what is the long-term benefit of that? i think it will be positive. also, what is the solution take away? that's not going to work. i think it would make things worse. judging from what happened in 2012, which placed in ukraine and the largest football tournament in the world will have some of the very similar issues in terms of race and gender rights, better. for weeks and weeks prior to the event and now take that with russia and on top of russia having problems with neighbors. russia will get full on media attention for two years. there will be for my media attention on russia and i think that is going to do a lot more than taking away the tournament. [inaudible] >> it's not then very long. that's not very long in terms of dialogue. >> thank you. you answered my question that it has not brought any benefit in terms of russia. that's your interpretation. >> at least two people are historians by background. managing the impact of something that happened 15 month ago is more complicated than not in terms of how human beings can change in society. i understand it will always be a sensitive issue. we have other questions? >> first of all that was really excellent. really fantastic discussion. let's give a round of applause for the speakers to did a really excellent job. [applause] we intended to continue the project if you will with additional panel discussions, research and other goodies. the center of global interest, collaboration with george washington university. you can follow along and participate in the discussions. thank you for your attendance. [inaudible conversations] >> y will be held hostage? i didn't go anywhere. why were we held high age and not allowed to rescue our people? we have proof of it. why was that the case? you know what, baby, i from the 60s. call the police. i'm going to stop talking when it finishes by messages from my community. i didn't come to represent me. i came to represent the people sitting on the street right now around a brick made fire place because that's only heat we have in december. the hurricane happened in august. somebody needs to hear ballmer less than 500,000 people spread over less than 50 states is a question one of my neighbors wants to know. >> it's not really for us to be rebuilt or not rebuilt. i think it's reasonable to ask to have a flood protection system that is going to work. but when you see this just a few blocks up the road, all of the vacant housing you would think first things first. maybe people need to get to higher ground because the house cannot you rebuilt. it's not possible. you can still smile that daft smile. you'll notice that later when somebody tells you you smell bad because you will end up smelling bad. these are the houses they are still finding people because they can't go in there until they demolish a period when they tear down the house like that, they bring the dogs. this is a typical house they would find a body. >> the u.s. to achieve improvement in security nonetheless had ultimately been worse it depends how a man. i hesitated by increasingly interrogate myself. we don't know how local land. -- but it's also possible five years down the road we will be back in the news of the war in afghanistan. isis is now slowly emerging in the country. it is much worse than the taliban. the taliban is deeply entrenched in her they conceded. if we end up five down the road in civil war in afghanistan and you have a safe haven for the taliban and in isis, i would say it is not worth the price. >> next, panel discussion on strategic responses to terrorism including the tactic of hostagetaking. representatives from academia, government and military gave historical analysis and talked about the recent change in u.s. hostage policy in their recommendations for combating terror groups. he found was cohosted by the university center for terrorism studies, university of virginia law school the potomac institute international study for terrorism studies. >> one omega started. i'm professor wallace and i want to welcome you to the international institute for which i'm chairman. i will introduce you in one moment. first a topic of the program. terrorism captives, tactical legal implications, those of you who come to other programs that they invariably say we shouldn't forget that tons of terrorism and this is a program about the dems anyway. they were the first we've had. one of my colleagues pointed out by assisting agent is apparently killed correlation -- just working in egypt. tactics and strategy and i think in this little write up the best practices. one of our colleagues you will hear has written a book i happen to have read by sheer coincidence at this time makes a point we are not very good on strategy. i suppose it is a real test in this area. what might be the strategy for dealing with this extraordinary array of victims of terrorism. we've heard a lot recently about ransom negotiations and i'm imagining we will deal with all of these things. at this point i turn every over to fiona and he will introduce the speakers in the program. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you very much for your great introduction. since he did not speak in terms of substantive issues of law related to that particular topic, i am not going to present you. one is general gray sitting next to you. only those who speak deserve to copy. the only thing since he did say a few words, i am going to present to you a smaller version of general gray's wisdom. so secondly i will not present to you another book which just was released yesterday. this is my only copy. yours is coming because nato plays a very key role as you know in terms of piracy and counterterrorism, strategy. also related into the issue later on. what i would like to do very briefly because we have a very distinguished panel that will provide some context of perhaps a roadmap and we will discuss today is the moderator and the liberty to do that. first of all i would like to introduce our panel. you do have the program in front of you. first of all, i would like to introduce very briefly the panel. do not professor wallace. next is general al gray of the united states marine corps and currently a senior fellow and chairman of the board of the potomac institute for policy studies. they always request the last word. i am going to leave that to decide when to jump into it. at any rate, we are going to have first ambassador retired i would say unfortunately for me i had the opportunity to meet him and for many, many years when he was the counterterrorism office at the state department and academically contributed. next on the left, not politically. at any rate, my friend and colleague, the only thing is true because the academic scholar and former fbi attaché in the middle east, et cetera, et cetera. next ahead is the minister and counselor and counterterrorism at the embassy of israel and next ahead -- next to her in sorry is dr. harlan ullman well in all the way back to csi sms currently senior adviser of the atlantic council. we are fortunate to have his wisdom and articles every week. i would like to acknowledge the contribution that his record in our event and bringing the discussion to a much wider audience in the united states and around the world. so our cosponsors in addition to the international law institutes, the potomac institute for policy studies at the university of virginia law school cooperating with us, many of this discussion. let me be very, very brave at this point. i will have something to say later on. first of all, what we are going to discuss today, basically to challenges the society is facing for many, many years. one is the chairman of mother nature. of course we know sometimes it is said security concerns a man made. first on the technological disasters that we see what is happening now with several explosions today so in china, there are many people with some chemical flows and the reason i mention this is because we have to think about the future in terms of the worst is yet to calm, in terms of hostagetaking and i will come back to it in a minute. then today of course the report about the croatian legislate on a scale that the islamic state province and cyanide. i say we need the evidence in terms of that particular event. i believe whatever the situation is, at least the message is getting through loud and clear to intimidate the international community. it is not only the hostage himself, but the wiser audience around the world and basically the entire society is a potential victim of terrorism. we have that particular situation and in addition we know and are going to discuss the role of isis, the islamic state. so we know they have intimidated not only the families, but the united states and their friends and allies all the way from the journalists, the united states, the u.k., the job is, charging the ends and so forth. i think we would have to talk about an islamic state, but also let me mention the islamic state would have to define hostages of kidnapping in another context as well in the strategic thinking of it as if taking slaves as a major target. it's not only individuals, but entire communities and ethnic racial and religious members and so on. in terms of the situation of the media recently focused attention on the u.s. citizen or so-called prisoners in iran and in the context that the nuclear deal with the iranians, the question really arose why did not the united states drive to pressure iran to release the hostages and prisoners in iran. i already think the hostages and kidnapping and i will come back to it in a moment. we have to look also at the pirate and piracy. whether it is a criminal act or rall so theological and political role as well. piracy again is terrorism. in terms of the kidnapping, as we know and i'm raising this again, i think we talk about kidnapping for ransom for example. the policies of government we have to deal with whether governments of a clear policy related to pay the rent them by families, for example, our institutions and so on. we are left to deal with that. of course the old area, you cannot isolate the terrorism from organized crime. for example, good old issue of narco trafficking in mexico come and see what happened in central america. we see what is happening in latin america and again latin america capital of kidnapping in the world in the 1980s and 90s but still they find kidnapping in latin america as well about 23% during the year. and then of course we have to look at some other origins around the world like in africa the book over rom kidnapping of the schoolgirls. that particular challenge still continues and has many implications originally and globally. one or two other things that i think we also discuss today. one is the so-called historical lessons because we are dealing with the dates. for example, what lessons can we learn. today, august the 13th is the fourth anniversary of the kidnapping as a non-us contract terse kidnapped by al qaeda in pakistan. as you know, the united state tried to rescue him and others from italy. unfortunately they were killed. so this actually happened in 2011. in other words, about four years ago and what lessons can we learn from that. also, i would like to mention elsewhere, for example, and spain on august 13, 1997, the 18th anniversary of the spanish politician bochco and we do have some people here that are experts on spain. kidnapped and shot and i think we have to remember this as well. there are many others we will have to deal with that. the point i am making is we really need a new approach so to speak to deal with hostages in terms of placing priority rather than a nuisance out to save lives. there is a scene in judaism and islam and christianity that if you save one life, it seems as if you save the entire world. after all, i do hope we learn from history as many of you know that we don't learn. what really concerns me is later on in order to do something about a terrorist threat. finally, in 1979, the makkah by terrorists is saudi arabia that sends a signal that the threat would stay in islam, the divide between the sunni and shiite desires are critical to take into account. this context i would like to invite our speakers to discuss whatever they think is important for developed dialogue later on. general gray, would you like to say a few words now or later on? it is all yours. we have someone with a diplomatic background and also academic background who established many of these issues. >> thank you, yonah. are these working? it is good to be back here. thank you for inviting me back here. this time it's different because i'm big enough which makes me able to make the broad general statements. last time i was the last speaker and i spent most of the time line enough staff and i is ended up with what looked like a cia redacted document. we'll talk today about hostagetaking and terrorism policy and i am going to focus mostly on the united states. it is always good to start with a definition. so, the seizure or detention of a person with their threat to kill, injure or continue to detain the person to compel a third person or governmental organization to do or to abstain from doing and not as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained. that is the u.s. government's official definition. in a sense, modern political hostagetaking arises from to his or her copresident, traditions. one referred to as the long history of the political military use of hostages as guarantees of good faith and the observers of obligations between states, monarchies, et cetera. the practice of taking hostages for the carrying out of the treaty between civilized states is now pretty much obsolete. 1949 geneva conventions and international convention taking of hostages deals per hit a hostagetaking is a crime or act of terrorism. the criminal version of the kidnapping is also historical and historical precedence of that. and that continues of course. and some it's almost an industry. ransom only been only demand for what is basically a purely criminal activity. a major problem and therefore facing governments and given what the situation is determining whether a specific event is political intent or white tends to be political because for some reason, some criminals appear to be claiming a political motivation summarizes more respect to bowl. they've got the problems deciding what they are facing. the modern subject we are talking about his political taking, political hostagetaking. something intended to make a political statement, challenge the existing government for further the influence of a particular movement or group. it is their turf than they been doing it for a long time and they know how to do it. modern terrorism began to some degree mostly defined in an 1860s but the modern says terrorist groups in latin america, europe, japan. cnn and libya became centers for trading and orientation or marxist militant with foreign tradecraft from the east germans and from each other. then we have the afghanistan situation i guess we will call it which spawned al qaeda and other jihadist movement were trading was done by the cia and pakistan's intelligence director in particular. of course we have some of us remember the innocent days of the red brigade group, but to boutique terrorism of the bouchard c. that produced u.s. government policy. we bring terrorists to justice and state sponsors of terrorism improve allies counterterrorism capability and with respect to hostages, no concessions, no deal. after 9/11, the policy was somewhat expanded with the global war on terrorism and much more aggressive policy at least rhetorically and especially more for the military. a hardline with others who are with us or against us and then we have afghanistan, iraq followed that the united states pitcher act, department of homeland security, et cetera. as part of ct policy is always the question of dealing with hostages. i was much taken by a recent discussion of the background of this policy by rand corporation brian jenkins to you while now. his basic thesis is many people around if they believed negotiations with terrorists are prohibited in all its at least for the u.s. government. but there is no law against negotiating terrorists. the existing policies intended to imply only the hostage situation and even there was exaggerated. is no legislation, no statute in the criminal books, nothing prohibiting negotiations with terrorists. the only guidance is in the form of policy statement that pertain to negotiations. this development began in the early 1970s when terrorists begins using diplomats and other government officials and professional diplomats present this enormously. the traditional role of the international community is thou shalt not attack nuns, children and diplomats, but that role is gone but their false sense of decency. the united district to position the host country was responsible for the safety of diplomats credit to it yielding to terrorist demands seemed only to encourage the possibility of more occurring. the united states the united states where he didn't seem to intervene in the negotiations that might attract more kidnappings of american officials and invite direct demands on the united states, not for the host government and therefore absolve local governments of their responsibilities. the policy would be in march 1973 when they took two american diplomats hostage in khartoum. hostages demand the release of palestinian prisoners held by israel, members of the terrorist gang held in germany is their homes or on. responding to a question during the crisis, president nixon stated as far as the united states as a government giving in to blackmail demands, we cannot do so when we will not do so, end quote, after it went public terrorists murdered the two diplomat in a few days the state department was issued using the president's language. therefore an unscripted response to a specific question in specific circumstances became general day. it was used often in subsequent generations over the year as giving -- not giving in to blackmail demands became no concessions which was expanded to include no negotiations. this was why we took it on all discussions. this approach became a mantra for the u.s. government repeated in numerous situations from the twa airline hijacking in 1985 to secretary of state condoleezza rice stating in 2004 the quote, president of the united states does not negotiate with terrorists, end quote could statements are not law. history and current law including the patriot act make it clear that the no negotiations policy was never intended to interfere that the authority of the executive branch to conduct foreign policy or pursue negotiations with anybody. in addition by the u.s. official in 2014 to persecute the family for providing material support to retire his organization if they paid ransom would've gone nowhere nowhere and the u.s. court. they're a too many contrary examples. u.s. policy does not preclude guide from ransom kidnappings i would not be able to hold to the policy and a quarter. not only do united states, the united kingdom adopt david no concessions policy dealing with hostages long before us get the policy did not preclude -- should not prevent them from communicating and negotiating the ira nor did american policy prevent aside that issue that issue. we negotiated an over the ira as well. we won't mention the peace accords in vietnam which involved the viet cong were despite the promises made to the israelis who would never talk to the plo. we talked many times and negotiated with them. so despite the situation, i will quote brian finke is here because he is pretty good. absurd interpretations by cautious aircraft and contorted portrayals by knowledgeable officials do to the adoption of a policy which comes from essentially short-term responses. policy guidance in other words is guidance that may be the policy you want to follow. but you have to always let circumstances determine when it makes no sense. it must be ignored and we and others have done that and we'll do that in the future. u.s. government came under severe pressure for what appeared to be a very callous policy. a lot of press, got a lot of criticism and in response president obama end quote a special review which issued a new presidential polls he directed pd three. taking the hostage abroad and personal recovery effects. pd 330 reaffirms the no concessions to, but for the first time no-caps -- just not me know communicationspirit of your state government to communicate with hostage takers and others. the u.s. government may assist private efforts to communicate with hostage takers to secure the safe recovery of hostage and this is interesting. the u.s. department of justice will no longer implies, hand or one that face criminal prosecution. and also in the best tradition of washington with new administrative arrangement is now a hostage response group, an issue manager, family engagement team and a new presidential envoy for hostage affairs because i made a special presidential would join the quarter 50 other envoys to swot up and down the halls of the state department. i faxed it in under the new policy is released last june explaining to very explicit points. this is in the fact sheet. it was executive order intended to ensure the u.s. government is doing all it can doing all it can to save there were cover americans taken hostage overseas has been responsive to the needs of families, end quote. second, therefore a shift in focus from providing social services to families to a new paradigm that emphasizes continual cooperation between the government and families and safe recovery of loved ones. she stayed the u.s. government must now earn families trust and confidence. now we've seen a significant reorientation on how we are doing. this is all part of the change of u.s. et policy over the last two years since 9/11. we have first an intensification of policy, militarization we've been in the last two years moving from the g1 to the acceptance of a more complicated conflict. too much affect on hostage policy except of the stuff i talked about has all been on the tactical level. however, many per missionaries of hostages had taken on the transnational character as talk about exacerbating the transnational political diplomacy intermingling of terrorist and insurgent act committees with other kinds of transnational crime piracy. weapons of mass destruction and on and on. criminal organizations as those terrorist groups have gone global presenting a new challenge to government, some of whom were overmatched and outgunned. the result is a global transnational nexus of political and criminal threat. the evolution of insurgency movements utilizing terrorist tactics and the networks refers to what happens in other organizations and is preventing providing a situation where more or less solid nationstate now come under attack by actors representing self-proclaimed racial ethnic religious and class entities as borders have become more open, all this legal trafficking activity is increasing exponentially. the threat to a larger number of a more fragile state is obvious. more broadly put, the westphalian nationstate system itself is now under attack. this means in terms of terrorist policy, we have to focus on the strategic level, technical level and in fact it is relatively simple. now the latest development with the rise of isis, we have a self-proclaimed hostage taking state. in a sense we are referring to the older tradition, the geneva conventions become relevant again. but how do you apply them? how to westphalian nations dates defend themselves? the obvious answer is effective mobilization of the state system in addition to the necessary national response by government unless the coordinate a response by the community at several levels. governments, government activist groups, coalition, international organizations. much easier said than done as the current situation in the middle east demonstrates. the arab middle east is in political social collapse and the social anarchy of the major regional players standing on the scene with the ability to act to any degree, turkey, iran, saudi arabia and israel are hardly a homogeneous group and only one of them is arab. they all oppose hostage taking in theory. they have a common enemy and i says, all engaged in cross cutting competition among each other. dms in the beginning it's all about politics. diy

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Germantown , Maryland , United States , Qatar , Makkah , Saudi Arabia , Brazil , China , Croatia , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , Mexico , Nigeria , Egypt , Khartoum , Al Khartum , Sudan , Volgograd , Volgogradskaya Oblast , Libya , Spain , Greece , Sao Paulo , Sãpaulo , Moscow , Moskva , Canada , Japan , University Center , Virginia , Germany , Iran , Afghanistan , Boston , Massachusetts , Georgia , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Pakistan , Thailand , Israel , Petersburg , Sankt Peterburg , Geneva , Genè , Switzerland , Sochi , Krasnodarskiy Kray , France , Italy , Manaus , Amazonas , Italian , Americans , America , Canadian , Russian , Iranians , Israelis , East Germans , Spanish , French , Ukrainian , Soviet , German , Croatian , Palestinian , Russians , American , Marlene , Brian Finke , Robbie Rogers , Al Qaeda , Jesse Owens , Viet Cong , Ken Meyer ,