To see disorder, particularly in key parts of the world as were seeing now in the middle east. Second reality that we face is that oftentimes states that democratize can become democracies, may become less close partners of the u. S. In security matters, specifically the case if the u. S. Had supported an authoritarian regime that preceded it, then a new regime comes in and they seek to distance itself to a may not seek to doubt the full panoply of u. S. Security agenda. With the difficulties in our National Security establishment in being able to reconcile a commitment to the longterm which is to have spread of democracy and then realizing that shortterm impacts of democratization may not be supportive of the u. S. Security interests. We, of course, have seen this in parts of latin america, parts of the middle east we have seen in some parts of asia and then across the eurasian space. Then, of course, we come back to the question, well, what about our model in Eastern Europe, central and east europe . I think it is important for us to take a few minutes to look at how and why come under what conditions american nationals a National Security interests and a commitment to democratization went hand in hand. That will help us tease out some of the factors we should look for when were trying to reconcile in other parts of the world some of the distinctions that are there. First thing, of course, is that east european states had clear security threats when they were escaping from the soviet bloc. They were always have been concerned about a resurgent russia. They were concerns in the time in the 1990 about germany. These states have Real Security issues that led them to Seek Partnership with the United States. This, of course, is where conditionality played a big role because the United States could make demands and requests of those governments that if they want a closer security and political relationships with with the United States, if they wanted membership in nato, if they wanted to be involved in the European Union, there were standards they would have to meet. So that we could say that we could use that as a very important lever for pursuing and encouraging domestic reform. We also had a certain degree of confidence in the 1990s that we could support a process without having to worry about outcomes. That is, we did not look at many of the central and east european states and say, only a few the Political Parties here are prowestern and proamerican, and the others to be antiamerican. And may be opposed to an american agenda. It allows us to focus on process rather than outcome. We did not have great worries when the polish communists came in after solidaritys term of government that all of a sudden they were going to rip up everything that had been done, reverse polands direction. In fact, the excommunists in poland were as supportive of western integration, membership membership of nato, membership in the European Union, of solidarity in any of the other political movements in poland. That allowed our democracy promotion efforts to avoid the appearance of trying to pick winners and losers in their domestic political process. We had a breakdown in russia in 1996 where we had a sense that yeltsins victory, Boris Yeltsins victory was an american imperative. We had to make sure that the the other did not win the final one round of the president ial election. So that is where we begin to see some deviation from that where it wasnt something about supporting process. It was about looking at the outcomes, political outcomes that we wanted, and then as weve gone back and looked at that with a willingness to have to compromise to allow the , democratic process to be compromised in order to ensure that president yeltsin would have his second term in office. And finally one critical part of the central east european experience, which may not be replicated in other parts of the world was that the fact that the United States government put its full faith and credit behind the democracy process was very important to local government looked at that as part of the validation of the reform process that they were doing to the fact that u. S. Officials, ambassadors , government functionaries were involved and for supporting this process was seen as a positive for the process. And so, therefore, look at this experience it can be contagious tempting to say that it worked in east europe, and we had the idea that every country is poland and all we had to do was take the polish model and apply it elsewhere and will have the same results. I think if we misapplied Eastern European expansion to go in eurasia today and in the middle east, it can lead us to a contradiction but it leads also to disappointment on our part. Why isnt it working out the way it is supposed to . Why arent we seeing the emergence of political movements that both support democratic process but also aligned themselves with the u. S. . We can see different reasons. We see certainly in the middle east that popular opinion is not particularly supportive of the u. S. National security agenda in the region. So democratization if we want to have more popular input and have in how governments are run, the trade off is to accept that theres going to be governments depended if there depend on the will of their citizens for legitimacy it will constrain what they can do in terms of cooperating with the United States. Sometimes political movements that are seeking internal democratic reform are not seeking security goals that favor the United States. The Green Movement in iran was not going to necessarily dismantle Irans Nuclear program. It was not going to be a big part of the issue so we could support them, or not support the as the case may be, whether not we should do that because it supports our values is one thing but the argument that some of is somehow supporting that movement was going to lead to a geopolitical change in the middle east, the facts dont seem to point that. We dont have the same sweeteners in terms of European Union and nato expansion in other parts of the world. We cant offer that kind of conditionality to say theres a light at the end of the tunnel, which helped to keep the east europeans on the track and on the straight and narrow between the balkans, that the idea that there was an end goal of joining the European Union and nato, we dont have those tools and other parts of the world and maybe more difficult to encourage that. Certainly the rise of china allows for the possibility that we could use that as conditionality, but they could also flip in the other direction which is we become so anxious to get allies for china that will overlook a multitude of s at home if it means were putting people into our camp. Finally, just on the last question, the last 30 seconds or so, i think we need to recognize that this tension is here. We cant wish it away between our short term security interests under longterm values. Some the things we may want to discuss any open discussion, does this mean we need to separate some aspects of the democracy promotion agenda from day to day diplomacy and governance . Do we want to have more Civil Society participation, less micromanagement from organs of government . The extent to which democracy movements feared u. S. Government involvement because that may lead into being tagged as u. S. Agents. And, finally, just to end on this point, i think we have to recognize as the democracy Promotion Movement regains its initiative, as i think it will, we will have to live with the facts that the leaders that are produced, they will be people who come to power, they will be democratic but not necessarily going to sign up on the u. S. Agenda. We have had difficulties in the past with leaders like neru. Who are democratic, but not aligned with us. We prefer they be adenauers and i think we need to find ways to expect that how are we going to interact with the future nerus that will be emerging, particularly in the middle east in asia and that ultimately we hope across the eurasian space. Thanks for much, nikolas. Thank you. Im going to be very brief and say that on the democracy assistance has not been successful. I think tom or others will probably make a strong case for it. I agree with all of that. I think it has been very successful and that would just leave it at that and focus on some of the challenges. I should say also that im coming from the world bank and these are my own views, not of at the bank tried to stop me, so theres a Democratization Movement going with in the bank, too. I think ideas matter and i think how we frame problems in the world matter. And i think if we look, if you just watch five or 10 minutes of news, you get the sense of security crises out of control, that weve got border crisis and weve got terrorism and the long war, and weve got drug wars. Theres just all of these problems. The ebola panic, and we just see the way that we frame the challenges, that we have today. Theres a very heavy emphasis on theres a world that is a dangerous place and we have to do everything we can to keep ourselves safe and keep all these threats from abroad from wreaking havoc at home. This is not the first time that weve seen the world of this way. Period. A recurrent you can go back to after world war i, the immigration crises and close the borders, or the communist threat in the 1950s. Another threats of our history weve been able to rebound to get a more balanced focus but , i think its fair to say that we are in a period where u. S. Foreign policy is very heavily influenced by security concerns above all those. And i think that matters because it determines policies, determines the types of programs, the way we find an act to protect our national interest. Ill give you a contrast with the way that we frame problems at the world bank in which is about the poorest of the poor and had to we ensure inclusive growth . Every time i have a project proposal i need to say this is going to benefit the poorest in society, this is about an economic conclusion. And you can see how it would have u. S. Foreign policy, that was based on trying to spread prosperity abroad and increased economic inclusion might lead us to a different set of policies than we have today which is where i , see everything is a security crisis. We have agricultural food security, water security. My favorite new program, its fishery security. In west africa right now the navy is helping farm or fishermen in west africa and improve the security of their fisheries. Now, of course they sure security is one way we could talk about the issue but we could also talk about sustainability or development. And that might lead us to a different set of proposals rather than having the u. S. Navy taking the lead in Fisheries Development and working with fishermen in west africa to increase the economic opportunities. And if we frame issues in terms of security challenges, and as all of these threats to our security, then we have to accept that the military is going to take a lead and we now have an Intelligence Community more than a dozen agencies i stopped count when i was doing some research on what i was going to say today, and it leads us to, well, sort of blending, we got the National Security agency doing spying abroad and here we are not quite sure everything thats going on. Leads us to accept a level of lack of accountability on military affairs because, well, the world is a dangers place and we have to sort of accept that this is how things are going to be. And i think in the context of lack of faith in our own democratic institutions, this creates a very serious problem. I think i saw last week the latest pew poll had trust in government about somewhere around 20 , which means that a large core of obamas supporters, including me, dont have a lot of faith in the way things. Washington is broken is not just a meme, it is a reality. We have five months of congress not being in power. Going around saying weve got perpetual war in syria, this ebola crisis, but meanwhile, our own congress doesnt really seem to feel any need to act. And so i think that this creates just be clear im not predicting any cruise in the United States. Dont anyone say this guy said coup in thee a United States. I am not saying anything like that. But i am saying that an excessive reliance on the military in a situation where we lack confidence in our own elected officials who we can control is perhaps not a great situation. If we want to rethink about the balance between security and democracy at about how we can engage abroad in a more productive way to hopefully bring about a more peaceful world, we might want to think about actions we can take on our own to perhaps restore a bit of confidence and credibility in the way we think our own government functions. And so adrian ambassador asked me, youre saying that everything is bad and theres nothing that we can do, so give me some actual ideas to give me a place to start of things the government could realistically do. And so ive come up with a list of ideas that i think hopefully we can consider. First, i think we need to end giving surplus military equipment to police and fire bombs, giving them tanks they dont need is not good for police. Certainly not good for us. And i think that maybe perhaps many people abroad saw what was going on ferguson, missouri, and said what to expect . Why wouldnt they put up arms up against their own people . I think more transparency in u. S. Military programs would be a nice thing. We have wars going in somalia and yemen and pakistan. It would be nice if we had a bit more knowledge about, about whos being killed and wants the source of this intelligence. How many innocent people are we killing, and not allowing the cia to classify anyone of military age male as a potential combatant. Some more transparency in our drones programs and certainly more transparency in our military programs all over the world. I work mainly in africa. I cant say im very familiar with the military, so i think it would be nice if we brought a bit more democracy to our security affairs. I think nsa surveillance, the nsas deliberate attempt to weaken the internet in order to improve its capacity to spy on people. I think that would be something that hopefully we can get a bit of a handle on. And i think it would be nice if we talked a bit about the way that we extended border insecurity into this 100mile barrier inside the United States, which includes everyone in washington, d. C. Because we are within 100 miles of a coast. That gives the Border Patrol a bit of how would you call it . Enhanced capacities for interrogation, that i think are a bit worrying. So if none of these are possible, and if youre going to sit and tell me, well, all of these ideas are far outside the realm of whats achievable given the security crises that we face in the world today, then essentially what you are telling me is that efforts to perhaps redo some of the problems in our own democracy are not possible, and if thats the case then we will have a very hard time trying to sell the idea of democracy credibly abroad. Thanks so much. Thanks. Tom. Thanks for the invitation to join this conversation this morning. In the spirit in which the ambassador launched us a little while ago, i been i have been thinking about making this an interactive kind of event. Ive been listening intently to each of the three previous speakers, and it may seem at some level that they presented alternative schools of thought or approach to this question so im not sure im allowed to say this but i agree with all of them. I agree with, in particular, with the way nick framed the tradeoffs we often face between potential shortterm benefit or need versus the longterm. That is the world in which i live every day in the u. S. Sit aroundas we tables, not usually as pretty as this, but trying to talk about how we integrate our interest in strengthening democratic governance and respect for human rights into our policies, very various parts of the world, policies that are driven increasingly by the security imperatives. We are long past the cold war that framed the International Operating environment for us so neatly, but now theres actually a hot war under way in this Global Campaign against extremism, violence and terrorism that is in the ascendancy of some key parts of the world. And so that drives, that friends frames a lot of our discussions about what can we do about democracy in egypt or bahrain or uzbekistan, the principal parts of our relationships for so many countries are driven by National Security imperative. That is not theoretical and abstract longterm. It is urgent. It is what gets the president of United States awake staring at the ceiling in the middle of the night is whos going to be killed next in the United States or in one of our embassies around the world. I think that that has to be appreciated as we think about how we continue to build out democracy, support and democracy assistance. At a moment, here we are 25 years after the velvet revolution, when is this loss of confidence and a loss of sense of purpose. I was at the same meeting carl was at in prague last week organized by a lot of friends of democracy in Eastern Europe and the world, and this is, this is kind of the framing art. You may recall the check velvet the larouche revolution was framed by pretty good art. I love the various kind of posters that emerge in the pit. Last week at the forum 2005 , on the cover of the program for the conference, this is a tweet from democracy. I miss how loved i was 25 years ago, tweets democracy forlornly. Because nobody thinks democracy or worthding or doable promoting. I think this cynicism, this gloominess has infested a lot of Conference Rooms like this and im troubled by that. Because i dont think that things are going i think we have to appreciate the immensity of the challenge we have set for ourselves. Those of us have made the worlds troubles, the worlds challenges our own here in the United States need to appreciate that its not going to be quickly or easily done. Carl talked about the illusions of the 1990s when it seemed easy after the fall of the berlin wall and the collapse of apartheid and transitions and other parts of the world. We may have gotten too greedy or somehow thinking this was easy, that the transition paradigms were going to implement themselves and that all we had to do was go along for the ride and take credit for it sometime. But i think what were finding is that some countries have governments and military establishments and tribal leaders and others who are really much more clearly opposed to this democratization and we encountered in some places and in some periods in the past. So really we are up against much more determined opponent i think than we thought in the 90s in so many parts of the world. They are doubling down on the opposition to our support for Civil Societies, for fair elections, for political pluralism, for independent media because i think we need to be thinking more strategically and more carefully, and that means also thinking more longterm. I dont think were going to effect a significant transition in any country for two reasons. One is because its not up to us. Its been said here that the future of other countries will be determined by the people who live in those countries. And i think we need to acknowledge that in our discussion about democracy assistance, that its not so much about us and what we do or how will we do it or how much money we have, it is really about what of the dynamics of who are the leaders in other societies who want to bring the countries into a more modern political arrangement. A more rights respect things democratic arrangement. They will do that in their own time. We can help them, but we can help them do it. We cant make people become democrats if they are not so inclined. When we find democrats, and they do exist, we can help them with information, with assistance, protection,al pressure, engaging them, integrating them into our societies. I think we are doing that. And i think that we need to be doing it in a strategic, patient way that acknowledges that its not just about us, but we need to be prepared for when people have a moment to move their countries in a better direction that we will be supportive of them in the ways that we have been when there are willing governments in various parts of the world willing to accept our Technical Advice or political assistance. In ways that we continue to do. The Millennium Challenge Corporation is very effective in a certain range of country possibilities. My own office at the state department has had a pretty consistent budget thanks to the congress to support Civil Society actors in a variety of countries and, of course, the National Endowment for democracy remains the premier institution in the world for targeting assistance to democrats usually in tough places. So they know they have support from the outside community, from the International Community. So let me mention a couple of things just to wind up this opening scene setter. One is that i think we in the United States need to appreciate the Important Role that congress plays. While we disparage its occasional polarization and inability to resolve certain major things, the congress has been a major contributor to american democracy programming in a lot of ways. Not least in the creation of my part of the state department. You know, the bureau for democracy, human rights and labor was created 30 years ago over the objections of the state department and the executive branch. Because it has long been seen in our political culture that we need to have some people minding this part of the store, and so we have played a role and increasingly, i think, prominent role inside the u. S. Government in being part of the conversations about how we integrate security, prosperity and our support for freedom as well. And so we do that, can we get increasing support from congress in various ways. One of the ones thats important for this discussion in an age of heightened security consciousness in our Foreign Policy is something called the leahy law. Senator pat leahy 10 or 12 years ago first put into congressional appropriations a provision that says we cannot provide military equipment or training to Security Forces units that we have credible evidence are involved in gross human rights violations. This opens up a whole other dimension of engagement with foreign governments and societies about how Security Forces can be made more rights respecting and lawabiding. And it works to some extent. It works in key ways to provide a different kind of pressure on authoritarian governments, particularly those who are allied to us, the kind that was referred to, you know, that are not democratic, but are friends of ours, so were willing to provide them with certain kinds of Security Assistance. We do that, but now we have a rights dimension to that discussion as well in many places. So i appreciate the role that congress has played in framing our assistance, our engagement in the world, not at least through the funding of the National Endowment for democracy, but also the large budgets that aid and others get. But also these policy discussions about things like the terms on which we provide Security Assistance. And ill just end by echoing what several people have already said, that one of the most important things we can do in the United States to strengthen democratic systems abroad is to be a better democracy. We need to be a better democracy just like europe needs to be better democracies and more persuasive and to carry in the wider world. And so i think we need finish those of us who care about our International Profile need to take an interest in domestic politics in a way i dont think we always do. I think we figure somebody else is working on that and were just going to solve the rest of worlds problems. Those of us who travel a lot and are called on to explain the u. S. System, i think need to spend more of our time promoting better government in the United States. Thanks so much, tom. Before we open the floor to questions, were going to give each speaker a chance to give a brief response to what theyve heard, two to three minutes. Well start with carl. Thanks. Maybe the first point to make is one that nikolas concluded on which is, you know, the nehru problem, as it were. I prefer nehru to mao and a democratic india to totalitarian china. We dont expect every country when they become democratic to somehow do our business, you know, do our bidding. But democracies tend to be friendlier than dictatorships which, you know, often rely upon needing enemies which whip up extreme nationalism to deal with their legitimacy problems. I prefer south korea to north korea. South koreas not perfect, and a lot of people in south korea that have problems with the current government. But i assure you, its better than north korea and not just that it doesnt have a gulag and murder its own people, but its friendlier to us than north korea. And those are the choices we face in the world. And its not irrelevant, you know, that democracies are not perfect and 100 allies. Second point, yeah, change sometimes is difficult. First of all, we dont bring all, about all that change. Mubarak was not going to be permanently there. The question is how to manage change. The problem with the mansfield argument that you referred to is he considered milosevic to have been a product of democratic change, that this was a transitional government. Milosevic was not a democrat, and its a false argument. There is instability in the world. The question i think we have to face is, you know, as we think about this work, what is the division of labor between a nongovernmental entity and the u. S. Government . And what do we want from the u. S. Government . I mean, one thing we do want, and ive said this, is that the people that we support could use the help, the diplomatic and Political Support of the United States. And of the west. A lot of that is being done to a certain degree. They need it more. You cannot view democracy assistance in a vacuum. You need to back it up with the Political Support that the activists need in order to survive, in order to and to function. We need a strong voice on these issues. We should not call dictatorships democratic or in the process of a democratic transition as weve, you know, basically referred to egypt recently. We may need to work with egypt as a country that shares certain interests with us in the middle east at a time when you have isis, but we dont need to call them democratic. And we need to speak about human rights, and it doesnt necessarily conflict with our interests in these countries. Finally, i think we underestimate the extent to which democracy and progress for democracy depends upon an orderly international environment. Youre much more likely to get democratic progress where there is a certain modicum of world order than you are where there is chaos. And one of the things i was arguing for is that i dont think it helps to remove the pole that holds up the tent of world order. And i consider that pole and we can argue about this to be u. S. Leadership, u. S. Influence. Because nothing is going to take its place. Its not all the answers that we have, but a stable world will depend upon that, and i think democracy needs that in order to progress. Two last quick points. We as a country in thinking about our Foreign Policy have to find the balance between what my board member calls maximalism and minimalism. We tend to have these swings, sometimes very, very sharply. There is the possibility of a solvent, stable middle ground. We have to fight for that which can take account of the need for power, the need for deterrence and also the need to support people who are fighting and struggling for democracy. And second and related to that, something were thinking about, i think we have to really start thinking very clearly about the relationship to Security Issues to democracy issues. These are complex questions, and i think its important to bring people together to start thinking through these complex questions. Because its not necessarily, you know friendly tyrants are not necessarily the source of stability and friendship in the world, and we have to somehow think about how to balance the tensions that exist. Therell always be tensions, but we can find a better way to balance them than we have in the past. Thanks. Certainly, north korea is a worse case than south korea, and i think theres no disagreement there. For the u. S. , of course, the india example is that our preference for pakistan when it did not have a democratic government because of the belief that it was closer to u. S. Security interests, i think, is more akin to what i was trying to get at, not the we can always have a clear cut case of where democracies are always preferable even when they have issues. And then we do have to get, i think though, and, tom, i think that this point you were bringing up is very critical of how we find these balances, what were willing to give up in terms of our security agenda. And with egypt i think it is a great case. We could have advanced a democratic agenda or been more willing to do so if there were certain elements of our security agenda we were willing to give up. What im trying to argue, we cant do both. We will have to have these debates. We have to find where the balance is going to be between we would prefer to see a democratic government and, therefore, willing to cede on a set of issues, a recession, and then conversely, i think, when we have Security Issues where we might feel that transitions might be problematic in the short run. And, again, having a calculus, i think, is better than simply flailing out and simply saying, well, these issues dont exist, or we can do can it all. And i think that one of the issues that weve had in recent years, the criticisms that are out will is that we dont seem to be able to strike this balance. We also then have to strike a balance with our diplomacy. You cant go to a government that is authoritarian that you are now asking for a whole list of security cooperations and then say, by the way, were also working to change your form of government. If that change of government is being perceived as change of regime. And, again, its not that we cant do both or that we should give up one or the other, its just being able to have these conversations about what were willing to accept, what half a loaf solutions were willing to have. I was glad that you mentioned the leahy amendment was if we always are more time, we can always bring up more things, and i think thats a great example of where we can use our conditionality. A state is free to reject our assistance if they dont want to abide by those terms, and some countries dont. Certainly what i see in the context of the International Military education is that it has an impact because when you say in order to get Security Assistance from the u. S. , you have to meet these standards. And when our diplomats can go to other countries and say you will have to pass certain smell tests with the u. S. Congress in order to get certain things, that can be effective. So i think that is one of the ways that we can find, we can search for the conditionality that we need if we want to pursue these things without having it, again, become this either or. We can either pursue security or democracy, but not both. So i think that the leahy amendment and other things like that are important for us as we continue our discussions today. I think we should look at those as being tools that can serve both sets of interests. I want to pick up on point of instability in the world. I think its a working in africa and spending a fair amount of i see this all over the place, and i think that what were seeing, take somalia as an example. This is a problem that weve been faced with for over two decades now, 1994 is when the u. S. Went in the first time there. And its still broken. And its still and the security threats there are real, and we have to think about what is a way to work more constructively in these societies. I think israel has been trying to bomb hamas out of existence for a long time now. The more bombs they drop, the more problems they wind up creating for themselves. Im not saying that we need to go and bring terrorist groups into governments. Im not, certainly not saying that at all. But if you think about libya or large parts of the sahel or large parts of the middle east, these are countries that are going through profound and difficult challenges, and its going to take much more than a military solution. And i hope that tom is leading a lot of these efforts to bring the state department into these and to bring usaid more into these challenges because it is they require political settlements. Now, on the positive side, and i said that i think u. S. Democracy assistance has been very effective overtaking a broad view is that most of africa, where i work, there are elections, and there are vibrant elections and getting into power really means something. And, certainly, there are problems in almost all of these countries with corruption and vote rigging and poor rule of law. But i also see that losers are upset, too, and they take steps to try and make these countries more effective. And so i see in that sense, i see a lot of positive change, and i see a lot of countries that are just, i mean, the competitive role of politics makes people and times want to improve the rules of the game so they can increase their chances of winning or more transparency for the government or stronger media for it to be critical. And so in that sense i think that we have, that two or three or decades ago no one would have predicted that ghana would be such a great democracy or senegal or even all the problems in kenya or zambia. It can go on. And so i think we shouldnt have undue pessimism because i think that given where a lot of these countries started 30 be or 40 years ago, no one would have predicted that they had challenging problems. And i think that we should be proud of the work that weve done there and learned there those lessons and apply them to challenges we face today. Thanks. And tom. The United States remains the most important country in the world and is also the one thats providing the most important leadership on democracy and human rights. Bar none. Pick next ten most active democracy promoters in the democratic world, and they dont add up to half of what the United States is doing. And thats not just in the funding, thats in the diplomatic and Political Leadership that the United States continues to provide. Were trying to overcome a period in which we seem to do that in an arrogant and clumsy way, and so it may have it may be sometimes too subtle for some or not as over the top in our rhetoric as we might be or might be more pleasing to some. But the United States is at the center of every important conversation on how to defend democratic governance and institutions and developing strategies on trying to widen those circles. Its not always public, but every other government will tell you that when they want to have a discussion about what to do about x country, it starts here. So im confident and comfortable that were managing an effort. The effort, as i said earlier, has some very strong opposition to it in some key governments and some key nongovernmental actors in the world. And were incurring some costs in other parts of our relationships. I mean, our advocacy for activists in places like azerbaijan and russia comes at some cost to our bilateral relationships in those places. We are active with, in defending those who speak up for the kind of values that we share. We do that publicly and privately. We are engaged with nondemocratic but allied or partner countries in a wide range of ways, and it does come at some cost in other parts of our relationships on security and other matters. So thats the enduring tradeoff, thats the balance we have to sometimes find is where, you know, how much, how much of a cost in a different part of our relationship can we incur in defense of our values. And thats what we wrestle with every day. And depending on the circumstance, depending on the threat, depending on various things, you know, we might be more forward leaning in some dimension and less so in another dimension. But that is what happens on a daily basis inside the u. S. Government. It was mentioned earlier that at world bank theres a movement for democrat, you know, among people that work there thinking that it matters more and more to their work. And thats also true in the United States. During this last 25 years in the United States government, these last 25 years it has become part and parcel of every diplomats dna to appreciate that the democratic character of governments that we partner with affects their International Posture and policies as well. And our military establishment, our intelligence agencies, i think, increasingly understand that and increasingly weave that into their engagements with their partners as well. So its but its, its not a universeally held view yet, but its an emerging and growing view. And so i think that we will continue in this direction for at least another 25 years and, hopefully, well have a few more successes to talk about in the next when we meet 25 years from now. [laughter] well, thanks very much, tom. I am going to open the floor to questions. I do ask that you keep your questions to actual questions. Weve had some very long and very detailed presentations here. I know this is a very, an issue that a lot of people have opinions on, but i want to restrict the discussion to questions and answers. So, please, focus on questions and not comments. So well take this person right here. Well get a microphone to you. Thank you. Thank you. My name is miriam from the collaborative for civic education. We run projects to help Civil Societies through civic education, and one of those is tavana which is an Elearning Institute for iranian Civil Society. My question is when does u. S. Policy harm Democratic Development . It seems like were focused on ways that we help it or dont help it, but not focused on ways that we can and do sometimes harm it. One case in point for me, and i was surprised that people didnt really mention syria. In syria, we had a case and it wasnt just for a few days, it was for a considerable amount of time when there was a peaceful, liberal, democratic opposition to assad. And president obama, the approach was support that wasnt really support, red lines that werent really red lines, and now we have a fight that is not really a fight. And what the result has been, an emboldened iran, an emboldened russia, and these things respect these things arent good for Democratic Development. Question, please. So the question is when does u. S. Policy harm democracy . With a focus on syria. With the focus on syria. So someone who wants to respond to that question. All i can say is that youre basically just putting a little bit of flesh on the bones of the argument that i was making. Could you spell that out . You dont understand what i just said . No. I dont think it was wise not to allow, not to support the secular struggle in syria. I dont think that was wise. And i think that was the view that was taken by panetta, by petraeus, by clinton. I think it was a mistake. And i dont think it was helpful. And i think it helped produce the problems that we have. There were a lot of other things that helped produce the problems that we have today, you know . And, you know, i would like to see us do much, much more in ukraine. And when we dont, we open the way up. We give the green light to some very bad actors who feel that they can take advantage and and have you know. I think that a we really need to be looking at not just providing net democracy assistance in ukraine. They need to be able to deter a foreign aggression. And we have to be able to help hem. And if we dont, you know, were not helping democracy. In the back here. Thank you. Im from the university of wisconsin. Id like to ask whats the best way to respond to efforts by suchritarian governments as in russia and elsewhere that pass legislation that tries to isolate local Civic Society groups to say if be you so much as accept a dollar from any outside source, you have to register as an agent . Obviously, theyre painting them as somehow unpatriotic and in other ways. Do we attempt to fly under the radar, or should we take a more active response to these efforts . Well, you know, i addressed that in my remarks. I said that president obama made a very good Statement Last month at the Clinton Global Initiative where he laid all this out. We really need follow up. A lot of this has to do with Political Support, political backup to the activists on ground. Let me just say that regarding russia, there are some people who draw jump to the conclusion that when putin speaks, everything, you know, thats the way it goes. The groups in russia, you know, have refused to abide by that law to register as foreign agents. Theyre fighting back. And for what its worth, you know, our grants program in russia has been growing over last number of years. Its at a peak right now. So theyre not running away. The people who are running away, i regret, are a lot of the western donors who have just withdrawn from the situation which is a mistake. You need to reengage with both concrete support to the activists on the ground wherever possible and Political Support to push back against this kind of aggressive behavior. Putin says, you know, what hes doing is just the same thing that we do. Its not. Its a violation of International Law, its consistent with an International Law for nongovernmental organizations in a transparent way to seek support, Financial Support for their work. Theres nothing inconsistent with that. And i think we need to push back very, very hard. As the u. S. Has done. The foreign agents law that was enacted a couple years ago after putins return is an echo of an earlier effort from six or eight years ago to overregulate ngos and restrict their access to the International Community. Were not as persuasive with the government of russia as we might be with some others, and so they havent taken our advice on how to organize their ngo laws and their approach to International Funding for nonprofit activity. But as president obama said last month on the margins of the u. N. General assembly in the meeting that carl has referred to, it is our policy to continue to support Civil Society around the world including, especially, in places where its under pressure from their own governments. So were continuing to do that. And were working with other governments and other International Organizations to do that. Theres a wide range of ways in which those in russia and other countries that want to access not just funding, but want to be part of International Community can do so. And so were working to make more and more opportunities available to them including from our embassy. Theres an Embassy Program to provide grants to Russian Group s that want to work with americans and vice versa. As carl said, you know, the endowment continues to work there. The u. S. Government continues to support Civil Society in russia. The only thing thats changed is that the russians obliged us to close the Usaid Mission two years ago, so there is no mission there, but that doesnt mean our support to Civil Society in russia has diminished in any notable way, at though as miriams comments suggest, there arE Organizations who have decided to manage their own environment in such a way that they dont want to receive grants from the outside or from the u. S. Or other governments. So theyre making their own choices. But when they want our support, they get our support. Any other comments . No . Lets take right down here. Well get a microphone to you. Thank you. Its difficult not to hear the discussion of democracy, u. S. For democracy and here it synonymous with countries who share our economic interests, security interests. I know youve raised some specific countries where thats not the case, but overall democracy seems synonymous with u. S. Interests. Now, what do you say to countries who are, who are doing well like china, like russia comparable to its past who view, who view these democracy movements as inherently subversive, as attempting to subvert their specific National Interests to one of simply u. S. Interests, the u. S. Global hegemony . Anyone . I mean, im happy to Say Something i have a lot to say. Exactly. Me respond briefly. I think it was arty put forward by the panel that democratic movements and democratic countries dont always agree with u. S. Policy. So thats a discussion we can have with democratic governments and democratic societies. We do that all the time. We dont automatically agree with france or canada or australia on every question that comes down the pike. So were perfectly comfortable with democratic processes leading to governments that may disagree with us on one policy question or another. Its not about u. S. Hegemony in the world, as you put it. Its really about whether people can decide for themselves who governs and how they govern. And in china theres, you know, theres not a real discussion about Public Policy in china. Theres no critical views of the economic system, theres no critical views about the treatment of religious minorities or of whats going on in hong kong, for that matter. So china is an example of a certain kind of economic system, but its based in large part on political repression. And so thats we dont know, we dont know if the Chinese People support that system because theyre not allowed to be asked or to to answer that question. Well, they have i mean, look, you have charter 08, you have signed by, you know, its very hard for people to sign a charter, but, you know, over 11,000 people immediately signed that charter and the main author of it is now in prison. You know, what do i say to xi . I dont talk to him. It is the u. S. Responsibility to talk with him or to talk to putin. Its not my job. I mean, there are people in those countries that you need to recognize. They are people who are aspiring toward a different kind of a life, a life that will give them, you know, a little bit more recognition, dignity and so forth. The only question is whether were going to recognize those people. It doesnt mean that our government does not have an obligation to maintain, you know, stable relations with some of these countries. But whats going to happen in china is not going to be because of what obama says to xi. You have really revolutionary forces at work there. Well see how successful china is, you know, given the fact that there middle class is growing. You have geometric growth of the internet, communications. It has some very, very severe problems and i think we publish a lot of articles about this in the journal of democracy, and i think the feeling is that and larry is just back, and he may talk about it today. I think you should question larry on this. But hes not gloomy when it comes to the prospects for china. When you say russia, which is doing so well, well, yeah, compared to stalins russia, its doing great. [laughter] and i, i really, i really think, frankly, you know, i think its enormous progress. But its actually in some ways, i mean, putin, he took over 15 years ago, it was the fsb taking over. They felt they were taking over from people they considered to be traitors, feckless democrats, people who were giving up russian interests, and they were going to assert russian interests. Hes a problem. [inaudible] the democracy look, a movement emerged in december 2011. The snow revolution, they called it. Where they wanted something different. They wanted real elections, they wanted protection for human rights. You call it overthrow, i call it, you know, rights and democracy. They wanted it more open political system. They were objecting to the fact that putin just said, you know, im coming back. Medvedev, you move aside. And it was almost like it was an arranged, something arranged without having any consultation with the people. And i think thats one of the things that stimulated the protests. Then he comes in, and hes cracked down on that. We will see where it goes. There was a very important speech as freedomhouse a couple of weeks ago and talked about a strategy for the future. There are alternative voices there. Right now theyre not a majority, and i dont suggest that they are. But there are alternative voices, and well see where russia goes. The economic crisis is going to deepen, theres no question about that, especially now with the Oil Prices Going down. Its going to sharpen the contradictions. And a lot of people feel, you know, that the putin regime could collapse. The question really is, is it possible for it to be replace by something better, or will it be replaced by something worse . We dont know. But if that does happen, i think we should hope that the people who offer a better alternative are in a position to exercise some influence in that transitional situation. Right here. Thank you. Please identify yourself as well. Thank you for the panel and your time. Could you identify yourself, please . Im with Development Agencies in the government. Is there a time for development . Is there a time for democracy . Because weve kind of been talking about the dynamic system that were in. How do we decide when we need to focus on Development Versus democracy, or do we implement them at the same time, or, you know, in that kind of dynamic timeline of countries within especially africa, but around world as well. I think that many people in here have written about this. I dont think that theres any inherent contradiction. Certainly, the argument that we shouldnt push for democracy, because its going to somehow derail development, i dont see thats ive, i can see certain countries maybe want to say rwanda or ethiopia that are developing and not democratic. But at the same time, i think that youre not going to, theres no reason not to support it there, and theres no reason not to give assistance to groups there. And then i see in other countries where development along a democratic trajectory can be complicated at times. It can be prone to all sorts of perhaps instability or corruption. But at the same time, i think that if you look at growth rates in Subsaharan Africa over past decade, africas the Fastest Growing region in the world. So some countries that have very high levels of instability kenyas a chaotic democracy, for example, is growing quite rapidly. And i spend a lot of time there. And they have an incredibly dynamic private sector that doesnt feel threatened or too concerned about the instability there that comes around election times. And even in nigeria, you talk to nigerian business people, and they have strategies. They leave the country for a few weeks, put their money in overseas bank accounts, but its still a thriving country. So i think the notion theres some sort of trade off is one that has been rejected in most cases. Just point out that world experts agree. The developmental advantage to dictatorship. I just want to elaborate. Theres obviously a relationship we are looking for the center of International Media assistance that will try to embed strategies or free media. I think a be critical for development that they could be more independent, free media been countries are seeking to find economic progress. The exchangemedia, of information, accountability on corrupt governments, you are not going to get real development. That has been a major part of the Development Strategy which is the support independent media through the programs and my own Office Supports a variety of independent Media Operations and training programs. Emdeddbedding strategy so that they support free media. Priority. A i am talking about europe, the global Development Agencies. It is not there. Lets bring adrian into the conversation. Some of you have alluded to the decreased u. S. Leverage in the world and the adversities and weve all talked about it. What i know that you carl and tom and barak are trying to get others to do more of the job. The mainingly, supporter of democracy around the world. The european endowment of democracy has been created. My general question is what are the prospects for and what is the method of getting to a point where other democracies help a lot more . It is not always the case of that the u. S. Is the best point man. Sometimes international entities, other countries will be much more credible. That is a good question. Just next month, i am off to korea where we will have a meeting on that subject. There is now the creation of an Asia Democracy Network ringing together bringing together actors from all over asia. The korean government is looking outward as we have been withdrawing a little bit. The a becoming more active and we are trying to encourage that. This Asia Democracy Network is based in korea. The secretary is provided by for korean ngos and they want the providing the institutional resources they need to exercise more of a role in asia. They are going to be people from the european endowment of democracy, the u. N. Democracy fund and the net family institutions and the center for International Private enterprise. We want to encourage korea to take the step and we have done this with a lot of other countries. I will take three questions and then we might be running out of time. One, two and three. Fire from the Foreign Policy research institute. And number of the commentators have talked about the tradeoff between security and democracy. Alike to ask about the tradeoff between democracy and liberalism. If we have democratic elections tomorrow throughout the middle east, the Muslim Brotherhood governments come to power. Is that good for democracy and the United States . The second question was right here. We will bring a microphone to this gentleman. Again. Our hand it is this gentleman right here. Please stand and identify yourself as well. I am from the american university. Carl, you mentioned this in your point about placing other values. Are economics there is global trade, deregulation, Economic Growth. These things have some economic colonists have said contribute to wealth inequality. To what extent does that conflict with democracy . The wealth and trade. The last question right here. Good morning. Im a student with the democracy in Government Program at georgetown university. My question is based on a comment that several of you made about the democracy at home and how we can better promote that as agents of Foreign Policy, especially in the state to 11ment where we have image of solidarity and support for u. S. Policies. Thewe can come home from work abroad and make yourselves a better democracy and in turn turn that around towards our greenwich abroad our advantage abroad. We will start with the first question. The question about democracy versus liberalism. Of course. Look, majority area democracy is not liberal democracy. And election is not just democracy. We think about democracy we think about separation of powers the bill of rights, individual rights and so forth. That will be a long and difficult struggle. I think the middle east is where maybe the weakness of liberal democratic aspirations is probably most rheumatic most dramatic. When we talk about democracy, the countries according to its it involves not just Political Rights but also civil rights. That is very essential. As somethingaccept that is democratic if the majority uses it to impose its power. That is what i was talking about when i was speaking in my remarks about that is the problem of the democratic backslide. Economics and trade . That is you, barak. N i think this is critical i much of world were i live and i see this from south africa to egypt. It is problems of lack of i think the bank i think we have it right. Shared Economic Growth and in particular jobs. When the contradictions between the elite and the regular people got so severe in egypt and tunisia, crabs not so much in other countries, that was ultimately perhaps it is not so much in other countries, this is critical. In much of subsaharan and africa, there is a very large bulge and most people are under the age of 30. The growth there is not producing jobs. This is a harbinger of a very big crisis. It has been the biggest crisis in south africa for it is a very unstable situation. I think also in the middle east and in syria that large groups of recently will allocated regionally reasonably welleducated and middle income is part of it. A late philosopher once wrote an essay about the social democratic prospect in which he said we put freedom first, but if you have levels of inequality that are so great, it will undermine the kind of Political Freedoms we cherish. Very fundamental problem that has to be addressed. A free and open society with a rule of law will do better in terms of managing these issues of inequality. You can say yes, china has grown butevelop the middle class that is only a political transition. If they want to continue along this road you would need the rule of law to continue. In democracy, people can organize if they have the rights to organize and defend their interest. That also can lead to greater protection for them and greater respect for the economic rights. Last comment . I think we are about running out of time. I want to get nicolas back into the conversation. I do want to kind of get his take as we have talked about both role of democracy and development and so forth in terms of how we create longterm interest. Inre does these issues play the short term goals . We have talked about balancing these considerations. From your perspective, where do you place issues like democracy and development. To what extent by focusing on realpolitik issues, do you face the backlash of the ultimate revolt comes in we are unprepared to deal with that reaction . Interesting about the questions the ambassador raised in his opening remarks which what point does the Foreign Policy pyramid is of the apex, is it one of several issues . Whether it is syria, ukraine or middle east, we do struggle with where we are going to put this. I think coming back to this question of realpolitik. One of the things we think we found which goes back to the korean example that if a country is tied to us because it has an exit central existential notrity threat, it does usually abandoned the eu relationship with the United States. The south korean activists who were jailed in the 1980s do not repudiate the u. S. Alliance because as long as north korea and the peoples republic of there is a reason for south korea to remain tied regardless of the values. There is a hard security connection. Understanding those dynamics is important. In understanding the dynamics of interest when you have a growing middle class that has economic ties to the United States or ties to the u. S. Business economy and to what we do here, those can help to smooth over when there has been a transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime without jeopardizing security interests. In the absence of those interests, though security and business connections, you can have this sudden reversal as you have pointed out that when a government that is seen as when yourian then have the transition occur, you dont have those constituencies in place to continue maintaining a Good Relationship with the United States. We also come back and talk about the internal democracy. I think in future sessions we will get further. We also have a question of we are a democracy ourselves in our Foreign Policy reflects what the American People want. The American People generally want a lowcost intervention policy around the world. We are happy to support democratic movements. The question is when that cost or those costs are hit, Political Leadership either has to make the case to the American People why this matters and why you have to sacrifice or Political Leadership ask away and says the costs are too high so we are not going to do it. Syria was a quick question of that was a great question of that. Butouldve supported that there were costs involved in i dont know if anybody was willing to pay. When you justify that to a domestic audience and given we are a democracy. Our for policy he goes back to the question that the American People get the final vote and they determine what makes values and realpolitik and promotion of democracy. Americans would like to do both. When they come into conflict, i think that is where we end up with these debates. Boots on the ground are doing nothing. There is something in between. I am not saying there is either or. Pose the choices quickly to the American People. I think the job of the leader Political Leadership for that. I think we can thank all of our speakers for very interesting panel. Thank you for coming. We will take a 10 minute break and resume here at 11 00. Punctually so please. Tonight, cspans 2014 coverage continues with the georgia governors debate between nathan deal and jason carter. The race has been listed as a tossup. You can see it in about 45 minutes from now at 8 00 eastern here on cspan. O edited clack on cspan also at 8 00, the Senate Debate between steve daines and amanda curtis. Recent polling has this race somewhat republican. That debate is live at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan [applause] 2. The louisiana Senate Debate was held last week between Mary Landrieu and bill cassidy and rob maness. Heres a look at that debate. I do believe our climate is changing and i do believe it contributes. However, we have to be very careful about the policy that we promote. I am a strong supporter of fossil fuels. Natural gas particularly because it is a 50 cleaner burning fuel. We have 200 years of it. America could do itself a Great Service and Great Security by promoting more Domestic Energy exploration production. I have been a strong supporter. I opened up 8 million new acres in the gulf. I have secured expedited on western land. I do not agree with president obama on his energy policies. I have now served with three president s and six governors. I have disagreements as well as support with some of their policies. We have to be careful about what we do but we can build a Strong Energy future with canada and mexico and be energy independent. Global temperatures have not risen for 15 years. There may be Climate Change that we have not seen the reflected in temperature. Were losing our coastline but that is relative. That is related to already on our river taking needed sentiment to repair the coast and other factors causing the land to sink. In florida, they have not see much rising. If you want to preserve the coastline, im not sure Climate Change is the issue as much as it is getting that sediment out of the mississippi river, putting it into the marshes where he can rebuild. That is what is important. As far as her support for the energy industry, i point out her first vote was for senator harry reid. Senator harry reid will never allow the gas jobs bill to come to the floor of the senate. She said that would be her first vote. Louisianas an open primary system where candidates running against each other. The majority wins the election. If the candidate fails to get 50 of the vote, there is a runoff. You concede the louisiana Senate Debate anytime at www. Cspan. Org. On u. S. Andssion International Communities response to the ebola virus. From washington journal, this is 40 minutes. Message. A thing knows we asked you to talk about the International Response to ebola. West africa the hot spot, epidemic. For this not surprising. Poor infrastructure and poor system. These are countries that were tarting to emerge with decent economies. Sierra leon have gone through decades of civil war. E recall Charles Taylor in liberia and you certainly movie r im sure the blood diamond which was about there. Ocities whatever was built up in terms f hospitals and roads and professionals would be blown up regularly and then theyd be then theyd be blown again. The tubmans were kicked out who in charge and it was this kind of a series of failed government. Surprise me at all. Weve read about and heard about cultural differences as in terms of what happens there in the way they live and whats happening to them. Understand . We what do we not grasp in that know. That we should we should think more highly of these people than we do. That im askedgs as n from my experience chief of mission in zimbabwe is what did you learn . Things i often civility out is the people. Ghtness of the wee need to keep this out of infected ot have any staff, but these are people. These are like you and i made in the likeness of god. When i send people to africa and en64 kour rapblg them universely they come back and they had low expectations going and they come they are very, very impressed. What do you make of the u. S. Response so far . Getting better. I think it was late of the it walked. They should have listened last the spring of 2014 and gotten about this, having a and the mission thousands of cables we wrote the great team i had because every dick taeulter and imagine thecan just amount of cable traffic thats town ut of monrovia free and the third country and im warned. Were f this started in europe our reaction would be completely different. Just an honest opinion and the fact. Host phone number at the bottom mcdonald reen for tom nd currently with Baker Hospital at the timeler. You sador mcdonald mentioned a u. S. Response perhaps late. Administration considering to some reports is annoyed by what is called a weak others. Sponse by the normal donors and i think people like toni who has been has ing about the problem been helpful and mobilizing and he europeans have not wrapped themselves in glory either. Host why . Lots of demands. Africa. Economy its otherwise i think people this are wonderful things going on on continent and some things that arent good at all and a lot of challenges and a lot of states and dictators, but the tends to be stereotypes. Africa is the place where civil these epidemics, infectious diseases. I really had the h. I. V. Aids risis on my watch to deal with as ambassador in zimbabwe so i saw this up close and personal. Heres a little bit of the president before we get to calls last week week addressing these efforts. President obama we are going we do to make sure that not lose sight of the importance of the International Response to what is taking place in west africa. Absolutely confident that we can prevent a serious disease here in the United States. More difficult to epidemic of ebola rages out of control in west africa. It will spread globall in an age of frequent and the kind of constant nteractions that people have across borders. And so, it is very important for us to understand that the we make in helping dealing sierra leon and with this problem is an investment in our own public health. This is not simply charity although its important that in the takes the lead humanitarian crisis that is taking place. But also probably the single that we rtant thing could do to prevent a more outbreak in this country making sure we get what is a aging epidemic right now in under control. Or that reason, last night i with i spoke with the and prime of germany minister of italy and president as well as David Cameron the Prime Minister of Great Britain to make sure were coordinating our efforts and we more tting in a lot resources than the international into this as put process. Host that was mid week last week. Do you get a sense that the getting that International Help hes been looking for . I think his comments are spot on. To take the lead, but we allies and om our friends and im glad hes phones. The how you doing today . High. Caller i had a question regarding the United Statess africa to ebola. I understand that the president some e was going to send roops over to africa i was wondering if and you could elaborate more what those troops are doing over there. Its about 3,000. I actually heard about got one friend who has a son going over as a matter of fact. I think a lot of it is going to and roads and re navy, i ng people, bees, electricians and caller they dont do this much educate the public. I the american ank people, the missionaries who have contributed so much and their lives. His is what america is about and im so proud. Host thank you very much. Would like to tell the ambassador he needs to be sent over the middle east representing america. Love america. Best trained and best have. Ience we could its an experience for the american troops. Thank you, franklin. Anything you want to add there . To do we should get him a p. S. A. For the u. S. Agency. Tion thank you so much. Host theres a breaking piece this morning. Time is reporting on it as are others. Been declared. A much wealthier country and bigger economic base. Lots of problems and lots of potential. But they would have a better again, with and all due respect to the countries involved. Very poor countries. Nigeria is at a different level that doesnt surprise me. Host roger says the followup story. Arent they looking at nigeria who have successfully ebola without travel bans. Point. Good theyve gotten involved there early at nigeria. On the ebola issue. Ost lets hear from richard fi s calling from philadelphia. Good morning. Caller im glad that nigeria was ome up because i wondering why even here the resident didnt use nigeria as a model. As to the aus involvement i have not heard a lot about that. Regional E Organization for west africa, but wherever help can be given be. Should i dont know this, but i would south ountries like africa which have first world believe they nt are not the president isnt helping in some way. Host we have jack from davenport, iowa. Hi, jack. Hello. Cdc people about a week ago said that ebola was spreading because developed in that area. My question or one of my is building who these roads in that area . S it the chinese who are using our money to develop mineral rights the problem there . Question is, are risk becauseext at development . Ights giving lots of money and its interesting as to us who would hire so when we had would have programs we would a limited number of locals and ats and africans. And chinese bringing their own workers much like when they their embassy in washington. If there are chinese there that either Small Business people or certainly possible. Host you mentioned earlier in ambassador, when lots of in zimbabwe experience with h. I. V. And aids devastating the continent. With ebo difference ebola. If we go back into history, he aids crisis started in the early 80s and we figured out what it was maybe in 1984. And i arrived in zimbabwe in 1997. We were getting to the point of planning, funding, actually a network of 13 v. C. T. Clinics for aids. We were the first country to do that. Project that reported to me. First one opened zimbabwe after being there six months. From paulette, bronx new york, democrat. Good morning. Caller yes, hello good morning. Hello. Cspan. Nice talking to asking the gentleman, can obama coming into this country . Why is he taking responsibility why is he taking the deadly r ebola this disease . Another question, can the msnbc and i saw on can we get everybody country, every everyone to respond and help in to be helping ebola in africa . And the republican instead of to government to deal with ebola they are campaigning on it. Its a disgrace. You cannot campaign on something as this s deadly telling people about it. All of them, comeruz, all of what we id, let us see can do. Host thank you for calling. Anything you want to respond . S m i would dont want to we politicalize this issue. This should not involve politics. We should steal ourselves though United States that hopefully there will be no persons impacted directly by should steal ourselves that there can be. Can solve certainly this problem. The president is getting whacked on it. Thats it comes with the job, right . And the ugly. I think this last week and i applaud them for the appointment of ron khraeupb who im familiar vicewith his work with the president and al gore. So were getting there. Been it would have sooner. Host specifically from the president of liberia who spoke over the the world weekend. Here is an interesting photo that says, liberia barely had 50 crisis before the ebola and among them was one of these doctors. About the long term cure of ebola and they need investments in health systems. We have about a minute portion say. At she had to history has shown that when at their darkest an ability to has act with bravery, compassion and selflessness for the benefit of those most indeed. From governments to organizations, Financial Institutions to to ordinary people on the street in every corner of we all have us take in the battle against ebola. Duty of all of us as to send a zens message that we will not leave west africans. To stand for themselves against not know and do gainst whom they have no defense. Only concerted action will save y country and neighbors from experience another national tragedy. Time for talking is over and stake, she says. I couldnt agree more and shes very impressive and doing a number of good things and a colleagues former ambassador in monrov monrovia. There is this shared history and former slaves were sent to liberia, monrovia, settling the country along with those who to the country. But i couldnt agree with her in her weve got a good to the American People that ought to be a good positive thing. Host get some more calls in. John, philadelphia, democrat. Youre on the air. Good morning. I would recommend people to get the National Geographic from 06. Of its called the black curse wondering if the gentleman this morning is piece. R with this no im not. But ill look for that. Exposes the conditions over there and it not getting. Eyre a lot of the corporations going sanitary conditions really bad and the three to can reporters who tried expose it were hung over there. Were not end what countries. Hese host whats your name . Is putman. Name ahead please. To er i want to say this the ambassador, the problem here looking atnot really im from liberia countries. Are poor theyre not iberia a poor country. Resources that can take care of itself. Aopulation is less than little over 4 Million People which is less the population in philadelphia. But if you look at the problem liberia is corruption. The government is corrupt to the if you look at raised arted, it was since march, the beginning of government didnt put things into place. The area and allowed the situation to get here almost more than 2 ion host thanks for calling. Relatives over there . Caller of course. I have family over there. Sisterinlaw passed away from ebola. In ve a friend who was emergency. He died. His wife died. Died and his law two kids died. Monrovia. In they quarantined the situation from where it started e wouldnt have this problem now. Host thank you for describing a terrible family situation. Prayers and thoughts go out to that family. Host leading to corruption and major part of the problem what do you think . Absolutely. This is a very complicated situation. Corruption in all these places i would say its a serious matter. Im familiar with that. You take the world as you find right . And these are people just like i, so the United States needs to do everything within help and get at the problem there. I know theres been so much is thi understandable with the United States and what happened at the hospital in dallas. If we solve this problem we have west africa and have to put almost like the military. Resources need to be brought to bear to this as soon as we can. Deedee wrigtes on twitter you know, on isis, indispensable nation. Ere the indispensable nation here. We have c one thirties and military. In. Can come army corps of engineers and there to do building ask isnt a military in the world or ealth system in the world better than ours and its part as americans. So having said that we should we need the other 1012 most advanced developed world. Ies of the we know who they are obviously part. Ep up and do their host we have 15 minutes left brooklyn, ira from new york. Aller id like to make a comment. This wholes bowl la crisis was totally preventible. 40 or 50 years of criminal british, french and china d the entrance of and their corporate interests in these proxy wars and gold for diamonds and hear from georgia now. What town are you calling from . I would like to say that i think that the emphasis must and n a finding out following the donations and the from our countries. Within and from probably from outside. Finding money and resources on top of getting the job done. There was an article this morning about a lot of our aid going straight to isis. The is true for africa. If there is not a way to see what than ppening to our money it is ridiculous to have so many congressmen worrying over the problem. Make a me y caller nts, not to this but in general. In the case of the Tire Companies that have in liberia for decades, they have built schools and many positive things. Exxon has had some charity and give back efforts to the us find the et balance. I am with this last about rooting out abuse. But in all seriousness i am not sure what the total expenditure the us has been on ebola. I believe it is a very modest number that needs to go up. New york dline in the vaccine push bola ramps up. Why the delay . If i said it some time ago, we s had affected europe would have had a vaccine ago. We have had ebola for some decades now. Why was it the t addressed . On commercial side, who is your aid umer . These are all dependent countries. Africa is end of the line. If it had been in a different region have had a vaccine a long time ago. Good morning. A couple of both to mr. Macdonald when i the viewers. Looked online, i saw that mr. From ald was an ambassador 1997 to 2001. That is pretty talking r him to be about a country in which he is no longer involved in. Want to say hing i is that there is a company in dc which is taking to fund nd us money their efforts. I am taking a cspan to task for not viewers as to this information. Mary, are you still there . Think we lost her. That we did get the point. With respect to the caller, i have made several trips to west africa during my life. I first went as an undergraduate in been to the also and senegal e several times. As for the firm do a lot of charity work do make a profit. We are a major employer in a number of us cities and i am be an Equity Partner and a member of our policy committee, which is basically directors of the firm. Kofi annan echoed something that you said during the about the International Response. If the crisis had hit some other region it probably would been handled very differently. In fact if you evolution of the crisis, the international the unity really woke up. To america and europe and then people woke up. It was only a matter of time. He is know mr. Annan and spot on. He is from africa, from ghana. On the independent line, from texas. For your fair points. The problem here is not only about ebola. It is about africa. The people react is when is a Natural Disaster somewhere else. Africa has a it needs tential. What Good Governance from learn. America has to from the past. The United Country with ood good people. I am an african and got my ame here grateful for am this country. But the united better needs to be a partner to africa. Africa has a is a rich ential and continent. The United States learn from this episode, not needs to stay in africa only stopping ebola but helping it can progress so that help itself. Tom mcdonald . I agree. I would say to the the United States over decades has given and tantial economic aid in various to africa with hiv and usly aids, the clinics in zimbabwe funded by us taxpayers. We the war ways do more. Terrorism, with boko haram in somalia has focused American People on this. I embassy during good period. But it is a example because ebola was and nobody t spring paid attention. It was only one people started paying attention. Even when there was an attack installations and american property people to not what was going on. Unfortunately the Attention Span of politicians and the us is not that great. And comes a crisis like ebola your shore, to texas, people want to do something. Jason, are you there . Turn sound on your set so we can hear you better. Want to mention is about the statistics from scientists that say ebola is caused by a diplomatic person and politician in the south of africa. This caused the spreading of the disease to parts of the r continent. Many say the source by the virus was caused American Government which was infect the african people. Now the United States is society and the community that is affected. But it is not accepting its in causing this disease. I am not sure i followed him, honestly. What is the longterm effect of ebola in the region . It will set back the in these three countries, which is unfortunate at a time when they were just to turn the corner, especially liberia. I mentioned the tortured history of all three of these countries. Even to a we finally bring this down to a or it is really small number of cases in west africa, what investor will want to go there . Who Company Office a in monrovia . This is a human where people are dying. Like the aids crisis. But one of the Untold Stories is how this hits in a very negative way the gdp of these three countries in the near term. From florida, angie, an independent. Ignored for s been too long. It is time for giant that are better equipped, to step in. This is or a black disease disease. In africa that is where this started from. If it is not stopped there it will spread all over the world. And they re crying need help. From more d help powerful countries. I agree. This is a problem it the world. We have seen now in dallas. We had a plane and go up to cleveland with one flying, so i needs to lock ld arms, other african countries as well as america, to solve this. Tomorrow, Chelsea Carson discusses gun control efforts on the state and federal level. In Michael Leavitt on the obama administrations response to the ebola virus. Plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets are washington journal. Up, three governor debates. First, the georgia governors debate between nathan deal, democrat jason carter and independent andrew hunt. The maine governor debate between paul lepage, mike michaud and eliot cutler. Later, the alaska governors debate. His independent challenger, bill walker and caroline cliff. Sundays georgias governor debate between jason carter, governor deal, and andrew hunt. This hourlong debate is courtesy of the Atlanta Press club